• Please be sure to read the rules and adhere to them. Some banned members have complained that they are not spammers. But they spammed us. Some even tried to redirect our members to other forums. Duh. Be smart. Read the rules and adhere to them and we will all get along just fine. Cheers. :beer: Link to the rules: https://www.forumsforums.com/threads/forum-rules-info.2974/

Listen to this if you can

joec

New member
GOLD Site Supporter
What is your opinion of Ms. Maddow's comments?

Does it really matter to you what my opinion is, jpr? I do happen to agree with her on this though if you must know. I think she about summed it up factually in all honesty.
 

Kane

New member
I have respect for Rachael Maddow. Intelligent, articulate, well-sourced. Seems a shame sometimes that she spends such focus and energy chasing strict ideological lines.

And I say that because, even tho she is well researched, she tends to cherry pick the facts to suit the argument de jour.

Using her own examples, for instance, Cap and Trade is far more self-serving and sinister than she lets on, as is the role that a government mandate plays in ObamaCare. And she knows it. A worthy discussion of either topic would take more time than allotted by this thread. Yet she uses it as a slander against Republicans, when the Republican version of the same concepts barely resemble that which now serve the purpose for Obama.

And she will always find a chatty little liberal minion to agree with her. Bravo. But she would better serve her audience as a more moderate commentator. The way she handled Haiti or the tsunami are prime examples.
.
 

joec

New member
GOLD Site Supporter
I have respect for Rachael Maddow. Intelligent, articulate, well-sourced. Seems a shame sometimes that she spends such focus and energy chasing strict ideological lines.

And I say that because, even tho she is well researched, she tends to cherry pick the facts to suit the argument de jour.

Using her own examples, for instance, Cap and Trade is far more self-serving and sinister than she lets on, as is the role that a government mandate plays in ObamaCare. And she knows it. A worthy discussion of either topic would take more time than allotted by this thread. Yet she uses it as a slander against Republicans, when the Republican version of the same concepts barely resemble that which now serve the purpose for Obama.

And she will always find a chatty little liberal minion to agree with her. Bravo. But she would better serve her audience as a more moderate commentator. The way she handled Haiti or the tsunami are prime examples.
.

You are more than welcome to disprove any comment she or the other guy stated as fact. Please have at it that is all I ask. We all have a right to opinions just not facts as those are always the facts regardless.
 

jpr62902

Jeanclaude Spam Banhammer
SUPER Site Supporter
I think it's great that Obama wants to streamline a single governmental agency.

But that's hardly a basis to declare him the POTUS who shrank our gummint, or to categorically lambaste his opposition who view things differently.

My opinion is that she is guilty of the very thing for which she is criticizing Republicans: using talking points backed by limited information to paint with a very broad brush.

Kane posted other facts (i.e.: Cap and Trade and Obamacare) that support conclusions directly contrary to yours and Ms. Maddow's. Your response seems to be limited to, "Prove my information to be false."

I'm not contesting the info. Just the conclusions therefrom.
 

joec

New member
GOLD Site Supporter
I think it's great that Obama wants to streamline a single governmental agency.

But that's hardly a basis to declare him the POTUS who shrank our gummint, or to categorically lambaste his opposition who view things differently.

My opinion is that she is guilty of the very thing for which she is criticizing Republicans: using talking points backed by limited information to paint with a very broad brush.

Kane posted other facts (i.e.: Cap and Trade and Obamacare) that support conclusions directly contrary to yours and Ms. Maddow's. Your response seems to be limited to, "Prove my information to be false."

I'm not contesting the info. Just the conclusions therefrom.

All I've seen so far is opinion as I saw no facts posted by Kane just his opinion no more weight than mine really. As for my opinion of what she said I didn't offer it you asked for it. I said you are free to disprove it with facts to the contrary. But then my mind isn't made up on it other than what I've seen happen now for 3 years.

You know it is like when someone posts something like this and I disagree I'm told to prove it wrong, well now it is your chance to prove something that think is factual to be wrong. Oh like you I expect none partisan sources so please no fact check.org or fox news stuff as facts. I will suggest you look at the governments own records as well as creditable news outlets, you know what I mean, no biased reporting. It is simple really, though will require some time on your part.

Oh and by the way this is no more biased that the stuff I've read here as pretty much the rule.
 

jpr62902

Jeanclaude Spam Banhammer
SUPER Site Supporter
So ..... You're doubting that Obama is a proponent of the Cap and Trade bill?

You're doubting that Obamacare was enacted?
 

joec

New member
GOLD Site Supporter
So ..... You're doubting that Obama is a proponent of the Cap and Trade bill?

You're doubting that Obamacare was enacted?

No don't doubt it for a minute never did, nor have I stated it ever. So I guess you missed the whole point of what she was talking about based on what you just said. The point is if Obama suggests something, the GOP was all for just a short time ago, then it is bad because he was in agreement. All this BS punctuate with comments about socialism, not following the constitution, a lier because he is a member of the democratic party, etc, you know the favorite things you guys like to use when describing Obama.

On a side note I love the line about the NRA also, as I actually got their literature on how he hasn't made a move yet but he is planing on it. :yum: A great scare tactic, meanwhile gun rights have actually expanded across the nation over the last 3 years, go figure.
 

jpr62902

Jeanclaude Spam Banhammer
SUPER Site Supporter
No don't doubt it for a minute never did, nor have I stated it ever. So I guess you missed the whole point of what she was talking about based on what you just said. The point is if Obama suggests something, the GOP was all for just a short time ago, then it is bad because he was in agreement. All this BS punctuate with comments about socialism, not following the constitution, a lier because he is a member of the democratic party, etc, you know the favorite things you guys like to use when describing Obama.

On a side note I love the line about the NRA also, as I actually got their literature on how he hasn't made a move yet but he is planing on it. :yum: A great scare tactic, meanwhile gun rights have actually expanded across the nation over the last 3 years, go figure.

I've never said any such things about the POTUS, nor have I made any gun rights comments either, so you can keep that "you guys" reference to yourself, thank you.

And it seems you're the one missing the point here, but that is your right.
 

joec

New member
GOLD Site Supporter
I've never said any such things about the POTUS, nor have I made any gun rights comments either, so you can keep that "you guys" reference to yourself, thank you.

And it seems you're the one missing the point here, but that is your right.

That you guys comment, was meant for this group as it pertains to the majority of comments made by more than a few. Now I will agree I don't remember you personally as well as a couple of others that never lower themselves to that form of debate, jpr. I apologize for the mistake I made in my phrasing of that comment, as it wasn't aimed at you.

The gun rights thing came right from the video as well as I stated stuff I got in the mail on it.
 

Cowboy

Wait for it.
GOLD Site Supporter
Yup I listened to it but I hardly seen any more proof of facts from her then I have seen elsewhere, It is MSNBC hardly anymore unbiased then Fox news. But it seems since it backs up your opinion so you state it is all fact. :doh:

The fact is there is reason for the Republicans, Democrats and American public have good reason to be suspicious of his empty promises once again. But the fact that he waited 3 years to announce it and right while the campaign for re election is running at full steam I also question wether he will actually do anything or not. At any rate I posted this earlier but in case it got missed it fits this thread perfectly IMO If I am allowed it. I also posted facts before that the imigration deportation numbers he claims are true are bullshit but I am sure that got overlooked as well because no one commented since I posted it.

Obama Pledged to Streamline Gov’t Several Times Since Becoming Presidential Candidate

(CNSNews.com) – President Barack Obama’s election year pledge to end duplication and redundancy in the federal government is itself a redundant pledge, one made several times since becoming a candidate for president.
In a White House announcement Friday, Obama requested Congress grant him more authority to merge federal agencies, saying, “Let me be clear, I will only use this authority for reforms that result in more efficiency, better service, and a leaner government.”
But over the years, Obama has included lines in speeches such as a vow to “cut waste and bureaucracy and consolidate and collapse more than 100 different programs.”
In a news release, the Republican National Committee mocked the proposal. “Obama has said he’d reorganize, streamline, reduce government programs for only the past four years and even with a Democrat Congress, actually did nothing,” the RNC release said.
At a campaign event in Green Bay, Wis., on Sept. 22, 2008, Sen. Obama said, “As president, I will go through the entire federal budget, page by page, line by line, and I will eliminate the programs that don’t work and aren’t needed. As for the programs we do need, I will make them work better and cost less.
“I will create a high-performance team that evaluates every agency and every office based on how well they’re serving the American taxpayer,” the 2008 Democratic presidential nominee said.
“We will fire government managers who aren’t getting results, we will cut funding for programs that are wasting your money, and we will use technology and lessons from the private sector to improve efficiency across every level of government – because we cannot meet twenty-first century challenges with a twentieth century bureaucracy,” Obama added.
Just over a month into office, Obama pledged to go line-by-line through the federal budget and pick apart wasteful programs. He cited the Department of Agriculture’s savings as an example.
“We will replicate these efforts throughout the federal government, eliminating programs that don’t work to make room for ones that do and making the ones that we keep work better,” Obama said at the White House Fiscal Responsibility Summit on Feb. 23, 2009.
Since taking office, Obama signed into law the near-$1 trillion Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare, which mandates that individuals buy and employers provide government-approved health insurance plans.
The president also signed the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill that among other things created a new agency, the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau. Without congressional consent, Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency imposed new fuel efficiency standards of automakers.
On Sept. 16, 2010 in Milwaukee, Wis., Obama pledged to reorganize government again.
“We want to cut waste and bureaucracy and consolidate and collapse more than 100 different programs that too often duplicate each other,” Obama said. “So we want to change the way Washington spends your tax dollars. We want to reform a haphazard, patchwork way of doing business. We want to focus on less wasteful approaches than we’ve got right now.”
During last year’s State of the Union Address, delivered on Jan. 25, 2011, Obama again asserted the need to streamline federal programs.
“In the coming months, my administration will develop a proposal to merge, consolidate, and reorganize the federal government in a way that best serves the goal of a more competitive America,” Obama said. “I will submit that proposal to Congress for a vote - and we will push to get it passed.”
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/oba...several-times-becoming-presidential-candidate
 

Cowboy

Wait for it.
GOLD Site Supporter
This isn't the exact article I was looking for but close enough at least until I find it.

Obama deportation numbers a 'trick'


Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano last week announced that the Obama administration has deported a record number of illegal immigrants in the past year.
But the Obama administration is using smoke and mirrors to achieve its so-called historic record. Take away the illusion, and the facts show that the administration conjures up its deportation statistics.
Continue Reading



The administration appears to have artificially inflated its deportation numbers. It includes voluntary removals in the deportation statistics. But this is not removal because an illegal immigrant is not then subject to penalties for returning to the United States. For example, a single illegal immigrant can show up at the border and be voluntarily returned numerous times in one year — and counted each time as a removal.
Even The Washington Post found the Obama administration used questionable methods to achieve its deportation numbers last year. Just like pulling a rabbit out of a hat, the Obama administration’s record is a trick. In reality, President Barack Obama and his administration are giving amnesty to illegal immigrants through inaction. It’s no wonder that the president recently admitted to Hispanic voters that his administration’s deportation numbers are “deceptive.”
Take away the hocus-pocus, and it is clear the Obama administration is neglecting to enforce immigration laws. The administration has all but abandoned worksite enforcement actions. Over the past two years, worksite enforcement has plummeted 70 percent.
Under this administration, there have been fewer arrests of illegal workers, fewer criminal arrests, fewer indictments and fewer convictions. This means illegal workers continue to take jobs away from unemployed Americans.
Without worksite enforcement, we can’t stop employers from hiring illegal workers. And as long as the jobs magnet exists, millions of illegal immigrants most likely will come to the U.S. and take jobs from lawful workers.
The president and his administration have also decided to grant administrative amnesty to illegal immigrants.
Political appointees at the Department of Homeland Security recently established a working group with the specific purpose of overruling orders of removal for illegal immigrants. The administration’s new deportation policy strikes another blow at the 14 million unemployed U.S. workers. This massive backdoor amnesty to illegal immigrants could allow illegal immigrants to receive work authorization and could put even more U.S. citizens on the unemployment rolls.
In fact, when illegal immigrants are allowed to stay in the U.S. and apply for work authorization, the Obama administration grants it 90 percent of the time.
Napolitano — who is testifying before the House Judiciary Committee Wednesday morning — and other administration officials now claim the border is more secure than ever. But only 44 percent of the Southwest border is under the operational control of the Border Patrol, according to the Government Accountability Office.
Last year, nearly half a million immigrants were caught trying to enter the country illegally, and those are just the ones we apprehended. There are an estimated three successful illegal entries for every illegal immigrant apprehended. That means more than 1 million illegal immigrants cross into the U.S. each year.
It’s disappointing that the Obama administration continues to put illegal immigrants ahead of the interests of U.S. citizens. Fourteen million Americans are now looking for work. Meanwhile, 7 million illegal immigrants have jobs in the U.S. We could free up millions of those jobs for citizens and legal immigrants if we simply enforced our immigration laws.
Unfortunately for U.S. workers, the Obama administration’s immigration enforcement record is just a magic trick.




Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/66805.html#ixzz1jUXBMRCr
 

joec

New member
GOLD Site Supporter
I didn't state it as fact, I said I believe it to be factual, there is a difference. I also invited anyone to prove with facts not conjecture anything that was not factual. Now I would think that would be simple enough, given how high you all hold facts around here. So here is something with my opinion stated clearly for a change. So instead of me being told my facts aren't valid here is your chance to show me your facts. Now if you wish to try have at it otherwise don't bother then. Totally up to you as to what you want to do.

Oh and by the way your proofs given are also opinion, it even says so.
 

Kane

New member
Well. It seems that FF has a mission. Over the next 10 months, FF must convincingly lay down the case to prevent one its own from voting for Obama.
 

joec

New member
GOLD Site Supporter
Welcome to give it a try Kane as I'm flexible on most things political. I am a registered independent and a centrist to boot. I'm also according to most the last liberal minded person here standing. :wink:
 

Cowboy

Wait for it.
GOLD Site Supporter
I doubt this will matter either. BTW on the NRA and gun control do you remember the term "working on it under the radar" The comment he made to Mrs Brady, lets also gun forget the Fast and Furious scam that was designed to be used for more gun control untill it backfired.

That said he would be even more of an idiot then I give him credit for to do anything about gun control before the next election unlees he can backdoor it or sneak it into some other bullshit law which he is very capable of both. My point is if he IS elected you can bet your ass that will be one of his major prioritys as he as allways been for gun control including a complete handgun ban, He said it himself when he was a senator. :wink:


Nearly 400,000 individuals were removed from the country in fiscal year 2011, which ended September 30, according to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. ICE Director John Morton trumpeted the news, calling it the result of "smart and effective immigration enforcement" that depends on "setting clear priorities for removal and executing on those priorities."
The 396,906 figure is indeed a record -- but not by much. A total of 392,862 people were deported in 2010 -- a difference of little more than 1%, according to ICE. Almost 390,000 people were deported the year before that.
Significantly larger increases in the total number of deportations occurred during George W. Bush's administration. Fewer than 120,000 people were deported in 2001, when Bush took office.
http://articles.cnn.com/2011-10-19/...igrants-criminal-alien-program?_s=PM:POLITICS
 

Cowboy

Wait for it.
GOLD Site Supporter
http://judiciary.house.gov/news/2010/101206.html
Congress Needs the Facts on ICE Deportation Numbers

For Immediate Release
December 6, 2010 Contact: Kimberly Smith
Communications Director
202.225.6906
Washington, D.C. – House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Lamar Smith (R-Texas) issued the following statement in response to reports that political appointees at Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) used deceptive deportation practices in order to boost the Agency’s annual deportation numbers. According to reports, illegal immigrants who faced criminal charges were given the opportunity to voluntarily depart without receiving a criminal conviction on their record. This means many criminal aliens who would otherwise have been prohibited from traveling to the U.S. are not barred from applying for legal residence or entering the U.S. in the future. Additionally, media reports reveal that ICE included more than 19,000 deported immigrants from the prior fiscal year in their accounting.
Ranking Member Smith: “Allegations that ICE officials may have engaged in a coordinated effort to pad the Agency’s deportation numbers are troubling. Encouraging illegal immigrants facing criminal charges to take an ‘easy out’ rather than receive a conviction ultimately hurts the American people. It makes it easier for many illegal immigrants with dangerous prior records to return to the U.S. Congress has a responsibility to pursue the facts surrounding ICE deportation practices to ensure that the law is being enforced to the fullest extent.
“Deportation is not enough when it comes to addressing the problem of illegal immigration. Until the Obama Administration secures the U.S.-Mexico border, thousands of previously deported illegal immigrants will return to the U.S. each year. Meanwhile, Democrats in Congress are pushing for amnesty for an estimated two million illegal immigrants already in the U.S.
“Many American families are facing this holiday season with uncertainty due to the economy and increasing unemployment rates. Legalizing millions of illegal immigrants means more competition for scarce jobs. It is an insult to the millions of Americans struggling to make ends meet.
“When Congress returns in January, we will tackle issues like illegal immigration with the best interests of the American people in mind. We will promote policies to help grow the economy and put Americans back to work.”
 

joec

New member
GOLD Site Supporter
I doubt this will matter either. BTW on the NRA and gun control do you remember the term "working on it under the radar" The comment he made to Mrs Brady, lets also gun forget the Fast and Furious scam that was designed to be used for more gun control until it backfired.

That said he would be even more of an idiot then I give him credit for to do anything about gun control before the next election unless he can backdoor it or sneak it into some other bullshit law which he is very capable of both. My point is if he IS elected you can bet your ass that will be one of his major prioritys as he as allways been for gun control including a complete handgun ban, He said it himself when he was a senator. :wink:


Nearly 400,000 individuals were removed from the country in fiscal year 2011, which ended September 30, according to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. ICE Director John Morton trumpeted the news, calling it the result of "smart and effective immigration enforcement" that depends on "setting clear priorities for removal and executing on those priorities."
The 396,906 figure is indeed a record -- but not by much. A total of 392,862 people were deported in 2010 -- a difference of little more than 1%, according to ICE. Almost 390,000 people were deported the year before that.
Significantly larger increases in the total number of deportations occurred during George W. Bush's administration. Fewer than 120,000 people were deported in 2001, when Bush took office.
http://articles.cnn.com/2011-10-19/...igrants-criminal-alien-program?_s=PM:POLITICS

Good start however let me ask you this then on the gun control. You know for fact that Fast & Furious an ill conceived plan? You base this on what facts? Congressional findings, court cases something other than a political opinion column stating it was. Now I've heard the under the radar comment a number of times but since Obama has taken office a number of states have changed their laws toward guns for the better. The SCOTUS has up held the 2nd Amendment in the DC and Chicago cases. Now in this case no president has the power to change gun laws no matter how much he might want to unless congress goes along. The democrats had a 2 year run at it with no legislation that I saw even mentioned in congress during that period of time. However gun sales are a record levels since Obama took office due to fear of him taking away your gun rights mostly pushed by the NRA. Now those are facts as it stands now and not my opinion on it.

That also is true it was his stated goal when a senator, however he also stated when he took office as President it would not be considered during his presidency as we had more pressing problems.
 

Cowboy

Wait for it.
GOLD Site Supporter
Good start however let me ask you this then on the gun control. You know for fact that Fast & Furious an ill conceived plan? You base this on what facts? Congressional findings, court cases something other than a political opinion column stating it was. Now I've heard the under the radar comment a number of times but since Obama has taken office a number of states have changed their laws toward guns for the better. The SCOTUS has up held the 2nd Amendment in the DC and Chicago cases. Now in this case no president has the power to change gun laws no matter how much he might want to unless congress goes along. The democrats had a 2 year run at it with no legislation that I saw even mentioned in congress during that period of time. However gun sales are a record levels since Obama took office due to fear of him taking away your gun rights mostly pushed by the NRA. Now those are facts as it stands now and not my opinion on it.

That also is true it was his stated goal when a senator, however he also stated when he took office as President it would not be considered during his presidency as we had more pressing problems.
I have seen and heard enough evidence that in fact Fast and Furious was designed for a way to bring more gun control to our country I am 100% convinced it is true.

Not from reading articles on any of the major media or gun or NRA sites, but from following all of the live coverage I could posiblly watch that had anything to do with it. I am not talking about snippets here and there or you tube videos , but the live coverage as I take the issue very seriously, so have watched 100's of hours when I even "thought" the topic was being discussed. And I am looking forward to following up on the coverage until the truth is revealed.

This is not going to go away as both sides see through Holder and his agenda to cover up the corruption with the exception of about 4 complete nutcases, that do nothing to add to the hearings but continue to disrupt them at every chance they get. I cant get over why they get away with objecting crap all the time with nothing to add to it but they do. I cant remember there names off hand but they are all 100% against the second ammendment so you may know who I am talking about.

At any rate the deportation false claims as well as the immigration problem are also discussed in the same hearings from time to time, so its hard for me to provide proof or facts from live coverage except for some articles that discuss those things, which none will be any of the major media including Fox, which really sucks IMO. :doh:
 

jimbo

Bronze Member
GOLD Site Supporter
Joe, we might know better just what happened in Fast and Furious if the Obama administration would honor the subpoenas floating around, and turn over the requested documents to the congressional committees. Since he hasn't, he either has something to hide, or he is a narcissistic arrogant SOB who thinks he can operate outside the law. Or probably both. Most available evidence, including facts not denied, point to it being a screwed up operation, most probably so that the claim can be made that guns from the US are the cause of murder in Mexico. and so far no one has lost their job or even been reprimanded over it. In fact, at least two of those on the ground supervisors along the border have been promoted and moved to DC.

As for my believing that the president is sincerely in favor of shrinking government, once again we must look at the available facts.

So far, Obama has created around 50 Czar positions, about half of which are redundant. There is an energy czar and an energy department. Two or more czars doing jobs still performed by Justice. One or more dealing with safety and education, both clearly falling within other cabinet level positions. Departments of Environment and energy czars. There is the NLRB, whose job appears to be to prevent companies from building badly needed manufacturing in non union states. Two new czars since Jan 1st, and two new agencies, both appointed as recess appointments even though congress is not in recess. Obama simply declared that congress is in recess. One of these is a former director of Laraza, the other has major ties to ACORN. There are around 160 new agencies in the UHC bill alone. A TARP czar and a stimulus czar. Of the remainder not redundant, most are simply unneeded. Do we really need a Sudan czar? Wouldn't that fall under the jurisdiction of state? All of these (with the possible exception of the TARP czar) were appointed with no congressional approval by Obama. Since they were appointed without approval, presumably he can unappoint them as easily. So, if he is serious about reducing size of and making government more efficient, he might start in his own house.

It should also be pointed out that while the statement about the salmon being handled by two different departments is a valid one, so to are the redundant agencies created by the administration.

It's all just political smoke and mirrors designed to set up the blame for the mess in Washington squarely in the lap of the Republicans.
 
Last edited:

tiredretired

The Old Salt
SUPER Site Supporter
Joe is correct. Unfortunatly we know but have no proof of Holder's intentions. If we could prove F&F was a smoke screen to enact anti-gun legislation with the phoney prosecutions of legitimate border area gun dealers there would be a mass extinction within the DOJ. Evidence, if it existed, is long since destroyed and many more sworn to silence.

The basic story is that, on gun control, Democrats stopped trying. After Al Gore's loss in the 2000 presidential election, Democrats decided that their views on gun control were a political liability. A majority of the public favored gun control, but a majority of the members of the public who actually voted on gun control didn't. Except in a few big cities where the issue had particular salience (because of gun violence problems), Democrats who believed in gun control stopped talking about it.

Which begs the next question. Why do liberals hate guns so much? There are four plausible explanations for that.

1. Liberals hate gun owners in general Gun owners, as a general rule, are more conservative and are more likely to vote Republican. Gun owners are also more likely to join the Armed forces and to give unqualified support to our troops.

2. Gun control is a ruse to attain political power. Many misguided people have an honest aversion to guns and would prefer the enactment of strict gun control regulations. In this great country they are entitled to their opinion and to vote their beliefs. The liberal Democrats know this and use these people as a means to win elections. The liberal Democrats are actually an unholy alliance of single issue voting blocs. The liberal Democrats believe that they can win at the ballot box if they support the following issues and groups: abortion, homosexuality, affirmative action, opposition to school vouchers, anti-religious sentiment, radical feminists and big labor unions.

3. Liberal Democrats hate African Americans Despite their protestations to the contrary, much of the push for gun control comes from liberal Democrats who want to keep guns out of the hands of black people. Los Angeles, Chicago, Washington D.C. and New York City are places with large minority populations and very restrictive gun laws. Also, the people who push for gun control come from cushy places where minorities are not welcome (except as servants). How many working class African-Americans hang out in places like Brentwood, California or Beacon Hill and Hyannis, Massachusetts? People who do not want minorities to have guns like gun control.

4. Liberal Democrats Hate the Constitution The Constitution protects the individual rights of individuals and it protects individuals from the State. Liberal Democrats hate this. They believe that they know what's good for us, how to use our money better than we do, and they know whether I should be allowed to carry a gun on my person to protect myself, my family and my Synagogue. How else do you explain that liberal Democrats find a right to abortion emanating from the penumbra of the Constitution, but cannot seem to find any individual right at all in the Second Amendment?
 

Danang Sailor

nullius in verba
GOLD Site Supporter
... You know for fact that Fast & Furious an ill conceived plan? ...

Joe, it's entirely possible, even likely, that what you said here is not precisely what you meant to say. However, since it is
what you said I am willing to go out on a limb (a very sturdy limb on a very healthy tree) and say that Yes, it is a fact that
Fast & Furious was an ill conceived plan.

As it was set up, even without any possible gun-control conspiracy elements attached, the idea that we could coerce
honest gun dealers into making sales that they knew were illegal, so that we could then trace the guns into Mexico and
into the hands of the drug gangs, was ludicrous at best. Since it was (and still is) an incontrovertible fact that the majority
of the illegal guns "flooding" Mexico are NOT coming from this country, there seems to have been no really good reason
for this operation to even be contemplated, much less put into action. However, the last 2/3 of that last sentence can be taken
as my opinion, so don't count it as one of the facts.

So, we have a plan here that:

1) Forces honest business people to break the law by selling guns to unqualified buyers, and then;
2) Sends those illegally purchased weapons into another country with the stated purpose of tracking them, when;
3) There is no mechanism in place to actually do that tracking, and;
4) When the people who are supposed to do the tracking tell their superiors that the tracking can't be done, and;
5) Those superiors order them to go ahead anyway and threaten to ruin careers if any of this is mentioned, then;
6) It qualifies as FACT that the operation, for its stated purpose, was ill conceived.

However, if the true purpose was as the "conspiracy nuts" want us to believe, to make the case (not matter how
spuriously) that more gun control was needed in this country, then it was well conceived ... and only went awry when the
"wrong people" found out about it!

So, unless you want to sign on with the conspiracy believers, you have to admit that the operation was ill conceived. Right??
 

jpr62902

Jeanclaude Spam Banhammer
SUPER Site Supporter
Joe, it's entirely possible, even likely, that what you said here is not precisely what you meant to say. However, since it is
what you said I am willing to go out on a limb (a very sturdy limb on a very healthy tree) and say that Yes, it is a fact that
Fast & Furious was an ill conceived plan.

As it was set up, even without any possible gun-control conspiracy elements attached, the idea that we could coerce
honest gun dealers into making sales that they knew were illegal, so that we could then trace the guns into Mexico and
into the hands of the drug gangs, was ludicrous at best. Since it was (and still is) an incontrovertible fact that the majority
of the illegal guns "flooding" Mexico are NOT coming from this country, there seems to have been no really good reason
for this operation to even be contemplated, much less put into action. However, the last 2/3 of that last sentence can be taken
as my opinion, so don't count it as one of the facts.

So, we have a plan here that:

1) Forces honest business people to break the law by selling guns to unqualified buyers, and then;
2) Sends those illegally purchased weapons into another country with the stated purpose of tracking them, when;
3) There is no mechanism in place to actually do that tracking, and;
4) When the people who are supposed to do the tracking tell their superiors that the tracking can't be done, and;
5) Those superiors order them to go ahead anyway and threaten to ruin careers if any of this is mentioned, then;
6) It qualifies as FACT that the operation, for its stated purpose, was ill conceived.

However, if the true purpose was as the "conspiracy nuts" want us to believe, to make the case (not matter how
spuriously) that more gun control was needed in this country, then it was well conceived ... and only went awry when the
"wrong people" found out about it!

So, unless you want to sign on with the conspiracy believers, you have to admit that the operation was ill conceived. Right??

How is "ill conceived" a matter of fact? "Ill conceived" is a conclusion, inference, or opinion.
 

Kane

New member
In the hospital the relatives gathered in the waiting room,
where a family member lay gravely ill. Finally, the doctor came
in looking tired and somber.

'I'm afraid I'm the bearer of bad news,' he said as he surveyed
the worried faces. 'The only hope left for your loved one at this
time is a brain transplant. It's an experimental procedure, very
risky, but it is the only hope. Insurance will cover the procedure,
but you will have to pay for the BRAIN.'

The family members sat silent as they absorbed the news. After
a time, someone asked, 'How much will a brain cost?'

The doctor quickly responded, '$5,000 for a Democrat's brain;
$200 for a Republican's brain.'

The moment turned awkward. Some of the Democrats actually
had to 'try' to not smile, avoiding eye contact with the Republicans.
A man unable to control his curiosity, finally blurted out the question everyone wanted to ask, 'Why is the Democrat's brain so much more than a Republican's brain?'

The doctor smiled at the childish innocence and explained to the
entire group, 'It's just standard pricing procedure. We have to
price the Republicans' brains a lot lower because they're used."


It's all a matter of perspective.
 

joec

New member
GOLD Site Supporter
Joe, we might know better just what happened in Fast and Furious if the Obama administration would honor the subpoenas floating around, and turn over the requested documents to the congressional committees. Since he hasn't, he either has something to hide, or he is a narcissistic arrogant SOB who thinks he can operate outside the law. Or probably both. Most available evidence, including facts not denied, point to it being a screwed up operation, most probably so that the claim can be made that guns from the US are the cause of murder in Mexico. and so far no one has lost their job or even been reprimanded over it. In fact, at least two of those on the ground supervisors along the border have been promoted and moved to DC.

As for my believing that the president is sincerely in favor of shrinking government, once again we must look at the available facts.

So far, Obama has created around 50 Czar positions, about half of which are redundant. There is an energy czar and an energy department. Two or more czars doing jobs still performed by Justice. One or more dealing with safety and education, both clearly falling within other cabinet level positions. Departments of Environment and energy czars. There is the NLRB, whose job appears to be to prevent companies from building badly needed manufacturing in non union states. Two new czars since Jan 1st, and two new agencies, both appointed as recess appointments even though congress is not in recess. Obama simply declared that congress is in recess. One of these is a former director of Laraza, the other has major ties to ACORN. There are around 160 new agencies in the UHC bill alone. A TARP czar and a stimulus czar. Of the remainder not redundant, most are simply unneeded. Do we really need a Sudan czar? Wouldn't that fall under the jurisdiction of state? All of these (with the possible exception of the TARP czar) were appointed with no congressional approval by Obama. Since they were appointed without approval, presumably he can unappoint them as easily. So, if he is serious about reducing size of and making government more efficient, he might start in his own house.

It should also be pointed out that while the statement about the salmon being handled by two different departments is a valid one, so to are the redundant agencies created by the administration.

It's all just political smoke and mirrors designed to set up the blame for the mess in Washington squarely in the lap of the Republicans.

I hate to bring this up since I get its Bush's fault BS, but I do in this case. Now let me be clear Bush is just one example and he built on Clinton etc. So now back a few years and think about it really. How did they honor executive branch honor congressional subpoenas? It seems congress can't enforce their subpoenas in all cases due to a pesky thing called executive privilege. I know it is aggravating when rules get in the way. :wink:

Now as for Fast an Furious none of us know for sure as of yet exactly the facts. Now I don't doubt it was screwed up can any of you say for sure who in the agency came up with it, the exact time frame etc. With out these facts (not conjecture) all you have is opinion.

Smoke and mirrors 6 years of republican Congressional rule, 4 years of Democrat rule followed by almost 2 years of split rule. Nothing that can't be done to both sides of congress. I don't know but most seem to think a president any president can just change the way things are with some kind of executive order. Well it doesn't work that way it takes and act of congress to make most changes to anything.
 
Top