joether
Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
Here we have the puppet known as 'Phydeaux' spewing
Johuffingether - you know the accusation of calling me a puppet is a violation of the TOS, and you've been warned about it before. Desist.
To clarify, I was stating you were a puppet, not a sock puppet. On this forum a 'sock' is someone using another ID to promote their viewpoints. I was using 'puppet' to show you are shallow and without the ability to be anything more than a 'yes man'. You didnt post a second from the webpage and then say "Ok, this is what I agree/disagree on". No, you just cut/pasted without adding anything to the discussion. That's a puppet. But if your the puppet, who is your handler?
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Obama Administration uses IRS to target conservative, Christian and pro-Israel organizations, donors, and citizens.
I seem to recall the IRS used key words to find if a number of start up groups (liberal, moderate, and conservative) were following the rules that existed at the time.
I don't know if its because you're young, or if its because you're an IDIOT, but you seem to not realize that's ILLEGAL.
To do what? Use a search engine to look up information based on a key phrase? How is that illegal?
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Do you remember Nixon? Let me quote you from his articles of impeachment:
quote:
He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, endeavoured to obtain from the Internal Revenue Service, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, confidential information contained in income tax returns for purposed not authorized by law, and to cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigations to be intitiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner.
Notice the words:
.. to cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens..... tax investigations to be initiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner.
Using key words to target conservative groups - as they admitted they did - is ILLEGAL.
Nixon used the information incorrectly for political aim. The IRS used the key word search to help make the vast pile of documents easier to manage. They used phrases found from both liberal and conservative organizations to find whom had filed correctly and whom didnt. That's right, if liberals (not to mention moderates) were targeted along with conservatives, that would mean....EVERYONE....was targeted fairly; and not a violation of a law.
Funny how on this subject manner that conservatives ignore a glaring fact to come from the investigation: many conservative groups tried to portray themselves in one instance to obtain better tax payments when they really were of another; And those organizations knew it which would mean they were....LYING TO THE IRS!
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
You might also note that Nixon attempted to obtain confidential information - and was impeached for it.
Obama not only sought to obtain - they were CAUGHT giving confidential tax information to democrat and other groups.
The were CAUGHT trying to get IRS distributed for prosecution to the DOJ.
Yet, you would have to show evidence that was the motivation on the part of the Obama administration. Nobody found enough evidence to show a case in court. Maybe you can fake some evidence like Mr. Gowdy did on Benghazi....
You really need to look at all the string of events with an objective mindset.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
This is ILLEGAL.
Illegal like outing an undercover CIA agent because her husband was giving a sitting vice president a hard time in politics. Your side did not deal with that issue, so why should anyone take your side seriously on this issue?
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Now, if you had the brains g-d gave a turnip, you might recall Lois lerner pleading the fifth amendment. The fifth amendment protects you from incriminating yourself in criminal activity . Should have been a clue.
Pleading the 5th amendment does not automatically mean someone is guilty of something. It means one does not have to say anything they do not want; not just the stuff that could incriminate them. If a police officer asks someone they are questioning "Have you been drinking tonight?" and the person remains silent, are they drunk or just using the 5th amendment?
Before you go insult someone on the 5th amendment, make sure you have a good handle on it. If I had the brains of a turnip that would mean I'm living evidence that disproves the Theory of Evolution. Not to mention exciting biologists around the planet that vegetables have brains. Since my brain is Homo Sapian, things are good.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
After a few interviews and inquiries it was found that more conservative than liberal organizations had filed things incorrectly. In fact, some of those conservative organizations were trying to state they were one thing when in fact they were something else (i.e. being deceptive in defining themselves for tax purposes). Funny how none of the conservative websites state that nasty little fact, eh?
After a few interviews and inquiries it was found not a single application was denied. Funny how liberal websites fail to mention not a single case of wrongdoing was found.
You hate the liberal media, don't you? You would rather have a non-liberal media telling the news right? The problem you have is not understanding the word liberal. For a Grammar Nazi like you, I would expect a healthy understanding of not just the core definition of the word 'liberal', but the root of the word, which is 'Liberalis'. Its a Latin word meaning 'Freedom'. So, your against the Liberalis Media, or, against free media. That's right, you want your media as 'state sponsored' like something out of the book '1984'. A media that filters out anything that might make their political viewpoints look bad and heavily embellish on stuff that makes it look good. You know, how FOX 'news' operates.....
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
The applications were just delayed two years till after the election.
If government inefficiency is illegal, then we'd have to throw the entire Republican talking heads into prison. That would be of course those 'WMDs' we never really found in Iraq after we had invaded it.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
BTW, it was not the Obama Administration that order it, it was the IRS.
. Idiot. Forgetting the fact that white house logs show miller coordinating more than 108 times over this time period - the executive branch (the Obama administration) includes the IRS. Let me point you back to the article of
impeachment if you doubt that.
No, the Obama Administration does not include the IRS. The IRS is its own entity. It reports to Congress just like any other department. It does take direction from the White House the same as it does from Congress. You really need to study up more on the Executive and Legislative Branches of government and how various departments interact with both on a daily basis.
BTW, I do not take conservatives seriously when they talk about impeachment. They impeached a guy for lying about receiving a blowjob from a Jewish Intern. But didn't impeach a guy for lying to the nation about information that got 3,200+ US Soldiers killed, 32,500+ US Soldiers permanently injured, and cost the nation well over a trillion dollars worth of borrowed money. If your not going to hold your own party accountable, why should anyone take you seriously?
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
In an unprecedented attack on the First Amendment, the Obama Justice Department ordered criminal investigations of FOX News reporters for doing their jobs during the 2012 election year.
Not everything is as stated. However, the facts are missing from this 'argument' of yours....
BTW, FOX 'news' reporters are about as 'honest' and 'truthful' as a crooked politician.
Oh yes. Lets investigate and try to throw in jail anyone whose point of view we differ with.
Happened during the Bush administration......
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Let me quote from the New York times (you know, one of those few approved leftist news source)
quote:
An editorial board of the New York Times wrote: "With the decision to label a Fox News television reporter a possible 'co-conspirator' in a criminal investigation of a news leak, the Obama administration has moved beyond protecting government secrets to threatening fundamental freedoms of the press to gather news."[14]
Dana Milibank of the Washington Post stated: "The Rosen affair is as flagrant an assault on civil liberties as anything done by George W. Bush’s administration, and it uses technology to silence critics in a way Richard Nixon could only have dreamed of. To treat a reporter as a criminal for doing his job — seeking out information the government doesn’t want made public — deprives Americans of the First Amendment freedom on which all other constitutional rights are based."[15]
It may have escaped your notice, but depriving an American citizen of due process, and his first amendment rights.. is, yanno, ILLEGAL.
Depriving....ANYONE....of due process in illegal. So about those Islamic detainees obtained from theaters of war by the US Military and placed in Guantanamo Bay......(the ones the Bush Administration used 'enhanced interrogation techniques on?)
If your going to bash the Obama Administration, you have to bash the Bush administration. Since you can not do that, why should we take you seriously?
According to conservative ideology, a person's Constitutional rights can be ignored if doing some keeps the nation from suffering (insert whatever-end-of-the-world-issue-here). I seem to recall Dick Cheney stating "If we had a suspect that knows were a nuclear bomb was in the USA, we will use all actions including 'enhanced interrogation techniques' to get the information"
Again, you nor your political party head the Bush administration fully accountable for all of its misdeeds. Why should should the nation take your arguments seriously here?
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
President Obama, throughout his Presidency, has refused to enforce long-established U.S. immigration laws. For example
Yeah, like President Bush did in enforcing all the laws, right? Tell me, is torture a violation of the 8th amendment? Because a bunch of people were tortured for information in Guantanamo Bay. Not to mention not being able to see a lawyer, charged for a crime but never seeeing a court room, nor reviewing the evidence against them. Just a few more violations of the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments.
BTW, where were all the Republican-lead sessions in reviewing the 17 like Benghazi attacks that took place on George's watch?
Ah yes the two classic BDS response. What Obama did wasn't illegal because Bush raped Gitmo Detainees. And illegally got deferments. And Had sex with martians. (None of which, of course is true).
An yet, you can not address either issue brought up. Why is that? Do not have a half decent answer? FOX 'news' didnt tell you how to respond?
If your going to challenge the statement, you should try having something more than that pathetic bullshit.....
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Please try to mount a defense on why you think the president should be able to defy a judges orders regarding stopping issuing work permits and visas, to stop lying to the court, and to complete discovery in a timely fashion. I waited with baited breath a cogent response.
Your the one accusing the President of lying somewhere but produce no evidence. In our forum of justice, that would mean I can stay silent and still win the argument. 'Innocent Until Proven Guilty', Phydeaux.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
More than 300,000 captured illegal aliens had been processed and were awaiting deportation. But, incredibly, Obama stopped these deportations and ordered the U.S. border patrol to release many of these illegal aliens in violation of law and without explanation.
Without explanation eh? Never heard of an executive order? In this particular case it was the President's DREAM Act that didn't past the Republican controlled Congress; so he made what parts he could as an executive order to handle the problems at the time. The executive order allowed those people to stay if they fell into one of the following circumstances:
A ) Under the age of thirty
B ) Have been in America for at least five years
C ) Enrolled in school or have graduated from high school
D ) Have committed no felonies.
Again you seem once again to be suffering under a delusion of how our system of government works. Congress passes laws, the President executes them faithfully. It is illegal for the president to attempt to pass legislation under the color of an executive action. This was reviewed at a district court, and an appeals court and a Supreme Court. The district court stomped him and the appeals and Supreme concurred.
Again. ILLEGAL.
Up to the current, the President has executed his actions to his job very faithfully. What are you bitching about? Oh, the executive orders.....forgot.....
How many executive orders has the President issued in his second term? 25. That's right, the smallest amount of any previous US President going back to Carter! If your bitching about the number of executive orders issued, maybe you should take a look at the Bush Administration! Oh, forgot, you can not hold your own party to any level of REAL ACCOUNTABILITY!
Given your knowledge base on Constitutional law, it would be a fair guess that you really do not understand what your talking about. Since each of the GOP wannabes for President have stated they would sign an executive order to remove the Affordable Care Act from the books. If what you state is true, then they can not take such an action as it would be...ILLEGAL! Your 'OK' in them breaking the law to advance your petty political aims, right?
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
And not only was it illegal - he gave more than 32 speaches saying he KNEW it was unconstitutional.
Cite the source.....
Again, if your going to be a Grammar Nazi, EVERYTHING you post has to be perfect. What is a "...speaches..."?
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
conservatives behave more and more like Nazis every day. In fact, isn't one of they running for the GOP ticket right now? A Trump character.....
Yes I'm sure this is standard liberal fare: compare your opponents to the Nazi's. Gratuitous ad hominen - and so far out of acceptable behavior. But you, Obama apologist, being raised as a feral child don't know it. Remember what I said about lefties usually making a gratuitous attack first.....
quote:
Unfortunately, Mr. Trump has behaved like a Nazi. Hilter was against the Jews, Trump against the Muslims. I'm not the only one that has made the comparison. The facts speak for themselves at present. Mr. Trump has no ethics and no morals, just like Hitler. His appeal is towards the 'Low Information Voter'; just as Hitler appealed to the less educated types in the nation. The number of commonalities between the two is frightening.
Yes, I would like not to have to compare Mr. Trump to Hitler. But as stated, facts to the current show the man's viewpoints are very dangerous for the nation. A nation of free people!
An political attacks? You are ALWAYS on the political attack! That is all you do: attack, attack, attack. Never once considering that the other guys makes good points. You can not accept that. The purpose of a discussion is to show good arguments and decide at the end which of any viewpoints was the best. In your view, its a football game; one side has to win and the other loses. Yet, you can not simply shut up nor give the field to your opponent.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Obama has refused to build a double-barrier security fence along the U.S.-Mexican border in direct violation of the 2006 Secure Fence Act.
If Mr. Obama refused to build the fence, why did 613 miles of it get built?
First, it didn't. The law called for 700 miles of double fencing with security cameras and smart sensors.
613 miles of a pedestrian fence were built. One of these things is not like the other...
Now who is trying to back pedal here because their viewpoint was shown to be absolutely shit? You accused the President of not doing something. The only way he can the wall created is by passing a bill or....EXECUTIVE ORDER. But you stated that its illegal for a President to use such a thing to advance a law. If your right, then there is nothing the President has to do on the wall; its the fault of Congress.
Your trying to have it both ways, and I'm not going to allow it.
Either a President can not used an executive order to advance a problem towards a solution; or a President can not be blamed for things. Which is it?
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
As for the rest of it. The bill was introduced in 2008, and again in 2009. However, contrary to your ridiculous assertions, Congress was in democrat hands.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/110th_United_States_Congress
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_States_Congress
Oops. Damn inconvenient facts...
What was happening in 2008-2009? The nation was facing a serious economic recession if not the second great depression of its history. Yes, in light of all the other problems, the wall was not seen as 'an important thing to get done'.
Would you like the wall have been finished and not have a nation? Or have a nation and finish that project off at a later time?
But yet for the last year, Republicans have controlled Congress. Why have they not made it a top priority? Why have you not bitched about it? Where are the threads you created about that very topic?
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Obama's unconstitutional assault on your Second Amendment Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
President Obama issued, in one day, 21 separate Executive Orders that attack and undermine your Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
21 phantom executive orders. Tell me Phydeaux, why is your source so vague on defining each of these executive orders?
Because the President went on national television and said he had signed these executive orders - and as of the date and time of writing they hadn't been entered into the register, as required by law. Duh.
For the second time.....
Your source states Mr. Obama has 21 violations of the wall yet lacks any sources that show....EVIDENCE. Yes, anyone can make an accusation; but evidence of wrong doing gives strength to the initial argument being made. Where is all the source material?
Produce the evidence (all 21 sources), or shut the fuck up!
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Obama's assault on Christians and religious freedom.
This is so laughable as to take it seriously....
Your religious freedom starts where mine ends. Your religious freedom ends where mine begins.
Oh yes, so laughable that it went to the Supreme Court where the Administration got spanked twice. Sisters of the poor (iirc) and Hobby Lobby. Remember?
That would be that conservative US Supreme Court that stated mega corporations are people too, right? That group of conservatives usually have their minds made up on a case even before opening arguments are made. Justice Scalia is the most guilty of the practice.
As for the two court cases you mentioned, the saying is...STILL...true. Your religious beliefs start where mine end; your religious beliefs end where mine begin. All Hobby Lobby did was lose my business. An lost the business of many others in the area. Other hobby shops simply started ordering the stuff one finds at Hobby Lobby and gained new customers.
Every time Christians are dicks to people, more people leave Christianity. Cause and Effect.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
'Cuz nothing's more important than making sure nun's pay for abortions.
Maybe they would. Strange circumstances do arise from time time. Some say its God's way of seeing if someone is a good person or something else. God's already concluded that most christian conservatives are going to hell already....
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
Oh, and while we're at it - lets talk about those bakers, who sold cupcakes to a lesbian couple, but refursed to put a customized message on a cake.
For which they were fined $135,000. And then the government confiscated all the rest of their money too. Which, frankly seems kind of illegal.
Yes, they were a...PUBLIC BUSINESS. They were open to the...PUBLIC. Lesbians are part of the public. Therefore, that business had to serve them in good faith. They did not serve them in good faith, an so were fined in damages. We had a whole thread on it. We explained slowly the chain of events so people like you could keep up with the conversation. Apparently, you failed.....
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
But forgetting that what was it that that pesky 8th Ammendment says??
The 8th would not apply to that issue. Do you even know what the 8th covers? No of course not, otherwise you would have called for the impeachment the G. W. Bush administration.....
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
Most people remember this as the reason many states don't allow capital punishment. But note the middle part...nor excessive fines imposed. So the wording on the wedding cake was $32 dollars. For failure to do that a fine of $135,000 was imposed.
Yeah, that's totally reasonable.
Except your missing one small part....the issue was decided upon by the jury. They decided on the damages. The judge had to enforce what the jury stated. The business has the right to appeal the issue to a higher court.
You dont like how that court ruled on something? I dont like how the US Supreme Court ruled on Heller vs DC.
Tell you what, we'll reverse both and call it even, deal?
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Sure - confiscate the life savings of someone you disagree with. Cause them to lose their bakery. All for a pattern of behavior that had not yet been decided at the Supreme Court level.
Yeah. That is TOTALLY reasonable.
They refused something based on their religious faith, NOT, the long term financial health of their company. They made a very bad business decision. Happens all the time unfortunately. The lesson is not to repeat the mistake. If you own a bakery and you do custom messages on cakes....go with whatever the message is. If it sounds violent, destructive, or threatening....call the police.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Obama forced ObamaCare on an unwilling public through bribery and lying about its cost.
This is a violation of law, eh? Which one?
So you're saying that lying is AOK. Its ok to lie to the American people to get a bill passed that you want.
If lying is against the law, then FOX 'news' shouldn't be on the air; its anchors all serving life sentences....
Anyone could have read the ACA before any of the votes. Why didn't you?
BTW, it doesn't force anyone to have health insurance. There are two ways to not have health care: make $0 grossing dollars of income in a year or pay the fine as per the law.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Lets recall that during the entire stump period for the ACA Obama was telling americans if you like your doctor, you can keep him. If you like your health plan, you can keep it.
And that is all 100% true. Before you have a cow...READ ON....
People's doctors and health plans are tied together by way of an insurance policy. Before many parts of the law when fully into effect (~2011-2012), insurance companies were consulting their lawyers on which policies would work under the new law's definitions. The lawyers came back with things broken down into three generalize categories:
1 ) Policies that could be grandfathered
2 ) Policies that have some grey area of dispute
3 ) Polices that had many areas of grey area dispute
Insurance companies....HATE....grey areas of legal issue. They usually lose court cases due to it. So the company heads pretty much ended any polices that had grey matter and re-assigned customers onto new plans that would conformed to the regulations of the ACA. The majority of Americans did not even notice this! The insurance company redefined which doctors and plans would be available at each of the four plan levels. But wait there is more...
The administration had predicted that 30-40% of such policies in the business place would be removed (based on information from 2007-2008). When I read the ACA, I figured that number was 50-70%. No, it turns out the insurance cancelled out over 80% of policies. How was the President to know in 2009 of events that would take place in 2011?
BTW, I still have my plan and my doctor!
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
All the while his administration had signed off on preliminary rules that March saying 60-80% of coverages would be terminated.
The exact same rules were passed in finalized form July 7.
This can not even be true due to timing issues. Oct 2009 marks the unofficial time in which the President's original health care plan went to Congress. Six months later (the March you are referring to), was when the ACA was passed into law. If the bill became law in March of 2010, how could the rules be finalized a few months later. That's not how bills work! Bills are finalized, BEFORE, they are voted upon, not after. HOWEVER, a bill could be finalized at a later date with the adjustment of an amendment.
The way you worded things, would make it impossible to progress through all the correct steps. I don't think you even realize the problem generated. Hence, not bashing you here....
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
You and I were debating the very healthcare bill (that you claimed you had read cover to cover multiple times). I told you the exact same statement then, I gave you a link to the federal register - and you said it was a bold faced lie.
Back then, I explained the process as I understood to have taken place. I recall reading it in The Wall Street Journal. Dry piece of journalism, but it was consistent with evidence. How could the Obama Administration have known how hundreds of insurance companies would issue on their products just before rules were set to go into effect in late 2014?
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Yep. We americans just love people that lie to us.
"Read My Lips NO New Taxes." -G. H. W. Bush-
"I will not conduct NATION BUILDING in a foreign country!" -G. W. Bush-
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Obama managed to secure passage of ObamaCare by one vote in the Senate by bribing senators.
Yeah I don't consider this bribery. Of course it sure stank to high heavens. I suggest you google Cornhouser Kickback, the Lousiana Purchase, and google some of the patronage jobs that were awarded for loyal democrats that fell on their sword.
Of course - if you had a DOJ that would actually investigate alleged misdoings, you might actually get evidence.
As I said - I don't agree with everything on this list. But it was a great walk down memory lane on how corrupt and inept this president is/was.
And they left a few things off. Like.. it was illegal for Clinton to be named secretary of state...
quote:
You do realize your attacking you own words here? Yeah, I think you got messed up and thought what you had quoted were my words. Here is a hint: I NEVER use ObamaCare. I refer to it as the Affordable Care Act or the ACA. What most likely happened is that you did not display good html as a uniform. Happens to all of us....
But I'll be fair and actually counter what you stated in good faith....
You dislike Mr. Obama right from the begining. So of course anything the man said or did, you would be at odds with. In fact it is a normal conservative behavior to follow:
If Obama likes 'A', conservatives like 'B'.
If Obama likes 'B', conservatives like 'A'....
If Obama likes 'A' and 'B', conservatives like 'C'.
Recall the issue with Libya? The Republicans were waiting to see how the President would decided on the problem and then simply vote the opposite; like the opposite was their original viewpoint all along. So the President asked the Republicans "What would you like me to do", and toss the ball into their court. Thus preventing them from playing that cheap game ever again.
Why was it illegal for Mrs. Clinton to be Secretary of State?
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
In addition, Obama knowingly and blatantly lied to America and to Congress about how much ObamaCare would really cost.
The ten year cost of the program was done with ten years of tax revenues, but only 7 years of spending, thus leading to misleading statistics about the actual cost.
Baseline assumptions were mandated to the CBO, that caused the CBO scoring to be false.
And then theres Jonathan Gruber.
quote:
Gruber admitted that the Obama administration went through "tortuous" measures to keep the facts about the legislation from the American people, including covering up the redistribution of wealth from the healthy to the sick in the legislation that Obamacare is in fact a tax. The video of his comments just recently surfaced ahead of the second open enrollment period for Obamacare at Healthcare.gov.
"You can't do it political, you just literally cannot do it. Transparent financing and also transparent spending. I mean, this bill was written in a tortured way to make sure CBO did not score the mandate as taxes. If CBO scored the mandate as taxes the bill dies. Okay? So it’s written to do that," Gruber said. "In terms of risk rated subsidies, if you had a law which said that healthy people are going to pay in, you made explicit healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed. Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really really critical to get for the thing to pass.
..........................
Yeah, you are arguing with yourself here. I really did not give the original quote.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Operation Fast & Furious.
"Operation Fast & Furious" was the Obama Administration's gun-running scheme that put thousands of American-made semi-automatic weapons in the hands of Mexican drug cartels and resulted in the death of at least one U.S. Border Patrol Agent, Brian Terry. Obama's Attorney General Eric Holder lied to Congress and the public, claiming he didn't know about his Justice Department's Fast & Furious operation.
If your bullshit about this one, check out Operation Wide Reciever.
Uh.. no. Theres a few yanno minor difference.
1. Unlike operation Wide Receiver, the Obama Administration made no attempt to trace firearms given to the drug cartels, unlike Wide Receiver.
2. More than 2000 guns were sold to Mexican cartels members under Fast & Furious. Zero arrests of gang members were made.
Unlike Operation Wider receiver - where 400 guns sales were made, resulting in 1440 arrests.
3. The Mexican government participated in operation Wide Reciever. It was not even made aware of F&F.
4. The ATF agent in charge under F & F went directly to congress to act as a whistle blower.
5. Eric Holder was held in contempt of congress for failure to release documents to congress for F&F. Wasn't that the first time
a sitting attorney general was found in contempt?
6. Fast and Furious resulted in the deaths of hundreds of Mexican citizens; the guns have never been recovered, and in fact are still being used to perpetuate murders.
In fact, many of the guns were passed to the cartel with identifying marks removed.
7. F&F resulted in the death of a US border patrol agent.
But yea - other than a few thousand deaths, and no arrests, the programs were the same.
Its an imperfect world. The border patrol agent was simply 'wrong place, wrong time'. Had nothing to do with F&F. Yes a few thousand Mexicans died. Before you bitch at me for being evil, you have no regard for the 100,000-600,000 civilians killed in Bush's Iraq war....
Yes, F&F was not a good idea. It had many flaws. The country paid a steep price. All we can do is make sure it doesnt happen again.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Congress has now held Holder in contempt for defying congressional subpoenas and refusing to turn over thousands of Justice Department documents on Fast & Furious. President Obama asserted Executive Privilege to try to protect Holder. But for Executive Privilege to apply, Obama would have had to have known about Fast & Furious, making the President as culpable as Holder.
Really? One's 5th amendments do not apply because the person is a Democrat to a Republican 'inquiry'? You might want to check that Constitution again....
No, I suggest you do. You clearly do not understand that contempt and the fifth amendment are not the same. Pleading the 5th does not prevent you from being held in contempt.
Yet it does prevent one's words from being twisted by individuals that hold less ethics and morals than the standard corrupt politician. Republicans wanted a kill. They really didn't care how Mr. Holder would handle things. It was forgone conclusion before things started to heat up. They did things for political reasons just like Benghazi. What did they get for all their efforts? Not much.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
"Federal Communications Commission (FCC): Regulated the Internet despite a court order from the Circuit Court of Appeals for Washington, D.C. stating that the FCC does not have the power to regulate the Internet." (SOURCE: Report from Nine State Attorneys General)
There is a law stating that the FCC can not interact with the Internet in any form? And that it is some how Mr. Obama'a fault?
The quote is actually accurate. Mr. OBama attempted to have the FCC regulate the internet to benefit google and Netflix, big contributors. The appeals court ruled that the FCC did not have authority to regulate the internet.
The FCC changed the classification of the nternet from a non telcom service to a telcom service under a 1934 law intended for telegraffs, and then reissued the regulaton.
Just like the gun industry spends many millions to get Republicans to reduce firearm control across the whole of the nation. Change laws here, amendments there. Again, how is the action Mr. Obama took illegal?
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Now there is no question that this is egregious crony-ism. although sold as a consumer protection bill, the actual purpose of this bill was to assure that google and Netflix which during some time periods consume more than
50% of the bandwidth in the US - could not be charged more. And they got that protection for a couple of million dollars in donations.
Big Oil & Gas knew about the effects of Climate change for twenty years before it hit the media. From that time to now, they have been paying off politicians to undermine the science of Climate Change in any manner of ways. You want to talk crony-ism on a major scale?
Back in second term of G. W. Bush's administration, the nation was being wracked with outages all over the place. The President brought all the major heads of the oil, gas, and energy corporations to the White House for a summit. Everything was conducted behind closed doors and off the record. Immediately after those meetings all those outages cleared up within 24 hours. Like magic.....
Again, if its illegal for Mr. Obama to do, why are you not going after Mr. Bush? He apparently did the same if not worst. I agree, that crony-ism is a bad idea for this nation. But things have to be handled objectively rather than politically.
|
RE: 25 Violations of law. - 
Profile
.gif){kind=avatar}
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread