Fast and Furious

[Big Jim P]

It's the damn NRA. They've become an entirely partisan lobbying organization and many of their members haven't realized it and think that they're getting information from a source that simply works to ensure continued legality of gun ownership.

Well the sad part is that a lot of the members I've met know that the NRA is just a lobby organization, and they roll with it. Apparently the NRA is fighting for their rights, so why does it matter if their "facts" are complete bullshit?

In a similar vein to my above post: What of the opponents of the NRA who are trying to destroy one of our rights?

[Mavorpen]

Well the sad part is that a lot of the members I've met know that the NRA is just a lobby organization, and they roll with it. Apparently the NRA is fighting for their rights, so why does it matter if their "facts" are complete bullshit?

In a similar vein to my above post: What of the opponents of the NRA who are trying to destroy one of our rights?

Who are these opponents? Seriously, I don't know who they are. Here's my problem: the members of the NRA don't know who the hell they're supposed to be against. It's always "Obama's taking away our guns!" I'm sure there's an organization that is wholeheartedly anti-gun and maybe wants to get rid of the rights. But the fact I have yet to hear this organization mentioned by ANY NRA member is telling.

[Wamitoria]

It's the damn NRA. They've become an entirely partisan lobbying organization and many of their members haven't realized it and think that they're getting information from a source that simply works to ensure continued legality of gun ownership.

As opposed to thier opposite numbers who have absolutely no bias whatsoever.

I'm not saying that anti-gun groups aren't stupid. They are. I've talked to gun control advocates that don't know the difference between suppressors and flash hiders.

The problem is that the NRA continually drums up gun owners in favor of the Republicans by raising the spectre of Obama secretly planning on getting rid of the 2nd amendment, despite Obama having an "F" from the most powerful gun control lobbying organization.

[Gauthier]

Sorry to disappoint, but I don't have any puppets.

OK. That poster has your name, spelled backwards, and seems bent on getting a ban. I thought maybe the summer madness had driven you to trolling

I'm more inclined to believe it's a right-winger's puppet.

[Big Jim P]

In a similar vein to my above post: What of the opponents of the NRA who are trying to destroy one of our rights?

Who are these opponents? Seriously, I don't know who they are. Here's my problem: the members of the NRA don't know who the hell they're supposed to be against. It's always "Obama's taking away our guns!" I'm sure there's an organization that is wholeheartedly anti-gun and maybe wants to get rid of the rights. But the fact I have yet to hear this organization mentioned by ANY NRA member is telling.

No, the NRA is about the government taking our right to bear arms away. The fact that right now Obama is president means that he it the target of the rhetoric. The fact that mosre Democrats are liberal tha Republicans, and most liberals want to restrict or eliminate our gun rights, means that they are the primary target.

If you think that for one moment, the the Republicans, and conservatives wouldn't try the same if they knew it wouldn't alienate their voter base, you are sadly short sighted.

[Gauthier]

Well the sad part is that a lot of the members I've met know that the NRA is just a lobby organization, and they roll with it. Apparently the NRA is fighting for their rights, so why does it matter if their "facts" are complete bullshit?

In a similar vein to my above post: What of the opponents of the NRA who are trying to destroy one of our rights?

There has yet to be one with the organization and money of the NRA, otherwise they'd have countered the Fast Draw Stand Your Ground laws all over.

[Mavorpen]

No, the NRA is about the government taking our right to bear arms away. The fact that right now Obama is president means that he it the target of the rhetoric. The fact that mosre Democrats are liberal tha Republicans, and most liberals want to restrict or eliminate our gun rights, means that they are the primary target.

Again, I must ask WHO ARE THESE LIBERALS? I've yet to meet a "liberal" that wants to take away your guns. The NRA's members don't know who they're supposed to be fighting. The NRA takes advantage of this and just throws the finger at Obama and screams, "LIBERULS WANTS TO TAKE OUR GUNS!" without giving specifics. And when they try to give specifics, one Google search can completely disprove them wrong.

If you think that for one moment, the the Republicans, and conservatives wouldn't try the same if they knew it wouldn't alienate their voter base, you are sadly short sighted.

What?

[Ashmoria]

It's the damn NRA. They've become an entirely partisan lobbying organization and many of their members haven't realized it and think that they're getting information from a source that simply works to ensure continued legality of gun ownership.

As opposed to thier opposite numbers who have absolutely no bias whatsoever.

what opposite number is that?

the president hasnt done anything about gun rights and has no plans to do anything in the future. the nra lies and says he has a secret plan. is truth a kind of bias?

[Greed and Death]

As opposed to thier opposite numbers who have absolutely no bias whatsoever.

what opposite number is that?

the president hasnt done anything about gun rights and has no plans to do anything in the future. the nra lies and says he has a secret plan. is truth a kind of bias?

Did the Presdident in his camapign suggest bringing back the assualt weapons ban ?
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=6960824&page=1

why yes he did, It is not the NRA's fault Obama was stratagetically out manauvered by the NRA. Just means the NRA did a good job nipping his plans in the bud.

Did Obama appoint a Supreme court justice who while giving a pro gun talk during Senate confirmation hearings, who voted against gun rights being applied to the states ?

Yes he did. Until there are a good 7 justices who feel Fire arms are an individiual right on the bench the NRA has lots of work to do.

[Ashmoria]

what opposite number is that?

the president hasnt done anything about gun rights and has no plans to do anything in the future. the nra lies and says he has a secret plan. is truth a kind of bias?

Did the Presdident in his camapign suggest bringing back the assualt weapons ban ?
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=6960824&page=1

why yes he did, It is not the NRA's fault Obama was stratagetically out manauvered by the NRA. Just means the NRA did a good job nipping his plans in the bud.

Did Obama appoint a Supreme court justice who while giving a pro gun talk during Senate confirmation hearings, who voted against gun rights being applied to the states ?

Yes he did. Until there are a good 7 justices who feel Fire arms are an individiual right on the bench the NRA has lots of work to do.

the supreme court has upheld gun rights. until someone figures out a way around that there isnt any sense in pretending that the president is working to get rid of guns. he isnt.

[Mexo]

Press Secretary Carney isn't helping himself. I just wanna point out that Fast and Furious is nearly a duplication of Operation Wide Receiver that was headed by the Bush administration. However, Operation Wide Receiver was a joint operation between Mexico and the United States. Also, the guns were not lost. Operation Wide Receiver was highly successful and as everyone can agree, Fast and Furious was not. Just wanted to point that out because Jay Carney recognized it in the press briefing.

[Wamitoria]

Press Secretary Carney isn't helping himself. I just wanna point out that Fast and Furious is nearly a duplication of Operation Wide Receiver that was headed by the Bush administration. However, Operation Wide Receiver was a joint operation between Mexico and the United States. Also, the guns were not lost. Operation Wide Receiver was highly successful and as everyone can agree, Fast and Furious was not. Just wanted to point that out because Jay Carney recognized it in the press briefing.

I don't think anyone is saying that Fast and Furious was handled properly.

[Choronzon]

Cheney told congress that they weren't the boss of him and refused to even show up at hearings he was summoned to. And now Republicans expect me to be filled with OUTRAGE when Holder doesn't lick Republican lawmaker's balls.

Its one of those that would be funny if it wasn't so blatantly disingenuous. No wonder educated people and people who pay attention don't vote Republican.

[Ashmoria]

Press Secretary Carney isn't helping himself. I just wanna point out that Fast and Furious is nearly a duplication of Operation Wide Receiver that was headed by the Bush administration. However, Operation Wide Receiver was a joint operation between Mexico and the United States. Also, the guns were not lost. Operation Wide Receiver was highly successful and as everyone can agree, Fast and Furious was not. Just wanted to point that out because Jay Carney recognized it in the press briefing.

I don't think anyone is saying that Fast and Furious was handled properly.

its really hard to seperate the evil clusterfuck that was fast and furious from the issa witchhunt of eric holder. i never want to give the impression that because i think issa is a top grade mccarthywannabe that i support selling guns to mexican cartels so we can see where the guns end up.

[Gauthier]

Cheney told congress that they weren't the boss of him and refused to even show up at hearings he was summoned to. And now Republicans expect me to be filled with OUTRAGE when Holder doesn't lick Republican lawmaker's balls.

Its one of those that would be funny if it wasn't so blatantly disingenuous. No wonder educated people and people who pay attention don't vote Republican.

Coincidence that Republicans running states want to dismantle public education? I think not.

[Tmutarakhan]

It's the damn NRA. They've become an entirely partisan lobbying organization and many of their members haven't realized it and think that they're getting information from a source that simply works to ensure continued legality of gun ownership.

As opposed to thier opposite numbers who have absolutely no bias whatsoever.

There AREN'T any opposite numbers.

[JonathanAtopia]

We reopening the subject now

[Khadgar]

Cheney told congress that they weren't the boss of him and refused to even show up at hearings he was summoned to. And now Republicans expect me to be filled with OUTRAGE when Holder doesn't lick Republican lawmaker's balls.

Its one of those that would be funny if it wasn't so blatantly disingenuous. No wonder educated people and people who pay attention don't vote Republican.

Don't forget when Cheney and Bush did finally show, they refused to be questioned under oath.

[JuNii]

you know its political when isa refuses to bring in the people who started the program under george bush.

why would he? that program under President Bush Jr's watch ended under President Bush's watch. this one was started as Obama took office.

As for who knew and who didn't know... guess everyone was celebrating the outing of President Bush and didn't read the memo...

[Ashmoria]

you know its political when isa refuses to bring in the people who started the program under george bush.

why would he? that program under President Bush Jr's watch ended under President Bush's watch. this one was started as Obama took office.

As for who knew and who didn't know... guess everyone was celebrating the outing of President Bush and didn't read the memo...

becasue its good to know the history of gun walking programs like this. what exactly was done differently in this one. who from the older programs were involved in this one, what did they think of it?

all sorts of things that dont involve trying to fuck the president by proxy.

[Wamitoria]

you know its political when isa refuses to bring in the people who started the program under george bush.

why would he? that program under President Bush Jr's watch ended under President Bush's watch. this one was started as Obama took office.

The objection under Mr. Issa seems to be to the idea of "gun walking" period, not the fact that this particular operation was botched.

He's also been demonstrated to be rather ignorant of what gun walking actually is. Calling the people in who created the idea of "gun walking" could clear up some of the haze around the issue.

[Shofercia]

I demand sauce.

OBAMA STOLE ME SAUCE! IMPEACH OBAMA! Wait, what?

You folks in the US really need to sort out your education system if the OP is a representative example.

It's clear proof their democracy doesn't work. That's Her Majesty has His Excellency The Governor Barry O'Bama, Earl of Honolulu, Prince of Kenya, Viscount of Cork, representing the legitimate power over there.

Viscount of Cork just stole the show

I believe he is talking about this:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/20 ... documents/

Huh, they still let that loon Issa out by himself? Yeesh. Though I am curious as to what is so interesting that the white house doesn't want the documents disclosed. Where's wikileaks when you need 'em?

Issa's annoying. He gives California Republicans a bad name, and he was the one who helped start the recall against Davis...

But why is he holding documents that can do this
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/contempt_of_Congress

Because Congress won't hold the President in contempt.

Does it matter that the voters hold Congress in contempt?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/152528/congr ... w-low.aspx

PRINCETON, NJ -- A record-low 10% of Americans approve of the job Congress is doing, down from 13% in January and the previous low of 11%, recorded in December 2011. Eighty-six percent disapprove of Congress, tying the record high for disapproval set in December.

I think Colbert nicely summed up my points on this issue: http://www.colbertnation.com/#tool_tip_2

[Caninope]

Yes but it is still a congressional investigation and should not be sabotaged.

It hasn't been sabotaged. It is the President of the United States invoking powers granted to him by the Constitiution and affirmed in US v Nixon by The Supreme Court.

Congress will bitch and whine, but nobody in the end will give a shit.

Wait, this has probably already been addressed, but you do know that US v Nixon was an 8-0 decision against the President which limited executive privilege, right?

[Wamitoria]

It hasn't been sabotaged. It is the President of the United States invoking powers granted to him by the Constitiution and affirmed in US v Nixon by The Supreme Court.

Congress will bitch and whine, but nobody in the end will give a shit.

Wait, this has probably already been addressed, but you do know that US v Nixon was an 8-0 decision against the President which limited executive privilege, right?

This case isn't remotely like Watergate. It's not even being covered outside of the 24/7 news networks.

[Caninope]

Wait, this has probably already been addressed, but you do know that US v Nixon was an 8-0 decision against the President which limited executive privilege, right?

This case isn't remotely like Watergate. It's not even being covered outside of the 24/7 news networks.

No, I know. I just found it really odd that NSLV was using US v Nixon to support the notion of executive privilege, unless it was some sort of hidden joke I didn't get.