Obama Executive Privilege Asserted Over Fast And Furious Documents

[james&olya 1,121]

yes I did. are you calling yourself a moron? or are you just so hell bent on denying peoples constitutional rights you refuse to use common sense when debating gun control? sense you are one of the preceeding, i'll explain it to you....please read slowly.....after the sale from a licenced arms dealer you can't rely on individual citizens to follow the same regulations as the arms dealer. if a gun is stolen in a break in, its highly unlikely the thief will follow the regulations either...got it now?

I hope your powers of comprehension are sufficient to understand this. We will see. It struck me that many people on here are making a real show of righteous indignation that the program started by Bush and continued by Obama resulted in murders at the border of US personnel. These are the same individuals who defend gun show gun sales that also have been shown to sometimes end up in the hands of criminals. My point is that it is hypocrisy to find fault with the one but not the other! I don't like the F&F program either. The reason is the SAME one I don't like unregulated gun show gun sales. Where are you able to show that I want to deny anybody's constitutional rights?

[SMOKE 1,426]

I hope your powers of comprehension are sufficient to understand this. We will see. It struck me that many people on here are making a real show of righteous indignation that the program started by Bush and continued by Obama resulted in murders at the border of US personnel. These are the same individuals who defend gun show gun sales that also have been shown to sometimes end up in the hands of criminals. My point is that it is hypocrisy to find fault with the one but not the other! I don't like the F&F program either. The reason is the SAME one I don't like unregulated gun show gun sales. Where are you able to show that I want to deny anybody's constitutional rights?

i'm sorry james. i made an error in judgement and an incorrect assumption. i thought you were implyin we should consider banning all gun sales to citizens. again i'm sorry.

Edited June 22, 2012 by SMOKE

[ready4ONE 5,400]

are you seeing the differences in the questions you asked? i see them.

There is absolutely a difference in the questions, because the first is a trap for the second, and both are clear indicators of the rampant hypocrisy of the folks in this thread screaming bloody murder that Obama is to be directly implicated in the cartel murders of US agents due to use of guns obtained in the F & F operation. The "more guns = less crime" arguments logically dictate against these same persons making the argument F & F guns, and by extension Obama, Holder and the Justice Department caused and are responsible for the killings.

Sorry man, can't have things both ways. The right to possess guns, while strictly controlled in Mexico, is protected in the Mexican Constitution.

Edited June 22, 2012 by ready4ONE

[slim 1,514]

But isn't it your position that the 2nd amendment right to bear 'arms' is an absolute one and as such should include all weapons of modern warfare? You have said pretty much that in the past, even refusing to exclude small tactical nuclear weapons! Is that still where you would draw the line?

It's not an absolute right since it's taken away from many citizens every day. It's also not possible to practice this right in certain places - most notably government buildings.

You must have missed out on the undercover investigations that showed that licensed dealers at gun shows are quite happy to support straw men purchases of firearms. You know, we can have discussions about the wisdom of infinite proliferation of firearms but we ought to at least acknowledge the facts that are on the table. And those facts clearly paint a different picture than the one you are trying to paint here.

Yet Bloomberg is still free.

I hope your powers of comprehension are sufficient to understand this. We will see. It struck me that many people on here are making a real show of righteous indignation that the program started by Bush and continued by Obama resulted in murders at the border of US personnel. These are the same individuals who defend gun show gun sales that also have been shown to sometimes end up in the hands of criminals. My point is that it is hypocrisy to find fault with the one but not the other! I don't like the F&F program either. The reason is the SAME one I don't like unregulated gun show gun sales. Where are you able to show that I want to deny anybody's constitutional rights?

What you guys are failing to acknowledge is citizens legally purchase firearms every day and have the right to do so. If guns happen to fall in the wrong hands, so be it. Bad things sometimes happen. You can't legislate criminal activity into oblivion. Criminals break the law. That's what they do.

The reason the F&F scheme is so horrible is because it's an intentional set up to take guns away by legal means. It'd be like handing drugs to someone in an effort to show the public, "See. He has a drug problem." Well, no sh!t, Sherlock. In this case the government intentionally armed criminals in the hopes bad things would happen so they could end-around and take away guns from lawful citizens.

[james&olya 1,121]

It's not an absolute right since it's taken away from many citizens every day. It's also not possible to practice this right in certain places - most notably government buildings.

I am glad to see you are coming around!

What you guys are failing to acknowledge is citizens legally purchase firearms every day and have the right to do so. If guns happen to fall in the wrong hands, so be it. Bad things sometimes happen. You can't legislate criminal activity into oblivion. Criminals break the law. That's what they do.

Same with Mexico!

The reason the F&F scheme is so horrible is because it's an intentional set up to take guns away by legal means. It'd be like handing drugs to someone in an effort to show the public, "See. He has a drug problem." Well, no sh!t, Sherlock. In this case the government intentionally armed criminals in the hopes bad things would happen so they could end-around and take away guns from lawful citizens.

Buy more tinfoil!

[Harsh_77 716]

if its sold by a vendor at the show: yes. they are required to do backround checks just like at a gun shop.

if its sold by an individual: idk its imposible to say. that sale would have all the regulation of buying in a mcdonalds parking lot off a craigslist add or a garage sale.

yet another apples/oranges example. am i suprised.

[Harsh_77 716]

It is simple as they always say if you have not doen anything wrong than you don't have to be worried and you don't need to cover up.

So if Obama and his administration did not do nothing wrong than why create the wall of obstraction, share the documents and prove you have not done anything wrong.

Didn't he promise more transperancy when he was elected? Where is the transperancy?

[james&olya 1,121]

It is simple as they always say if you have not doen anything wrong than you don't have to be worried and you don't need to cover up.

So if Obama and his administration did not do nothing wrong than why create the wall of obstraction, share the documents and prove you have not done anything wrong.

Didn't he promise more transperancy when he was elected? Where is the transperancy?

I agree with the need for transparency. I have heard the argument that the documents being requested are far beyond anything reasonable and are just a fishing expedition motivated by the worst form of partisan-ship. I hope, for Obama's sake that what is eventually found will confirm that.

[Pooky 3,347]

I agree with the need for transparency. I have heard the argument that the documents being requested are far beyond anything reasonable and are just a fishing expedition motivated by the worst form of partisan-ship. I hope, for Obama's sake that what is eventually found will confirm that.

If AG Holder hadn't lied under oath, this whole dog and pony show might have quietly gone away by itself. But he did, and this has just snowballed from that point.

[Pooky 3,347]

Of course, this little tidbit from 2007 doesn't help, as it makes the President out to be either naive then, or a hypocrite now ...

[slim 1,514]

I am glad to see you are coming around!

Exactly why we need to do something about our government. If they're taking rights away from people, it's out of hand.

Didn't he promise more transperancy when he was elected? Where is the transperancy?

He's on a roll. First he bypasses congress and now he can do whatever he wants. I wouldn't be surprised if he starts wearing a crown in January.

it makes the President out to be either naive then, or a hypocrite now ...

Or both.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Of course, this little tidbit from 2007 doesn't help, as it makes the President out to be either naive then, or a hypocrite now ...

Nonsense. Does Barack and Michelle need to let a camera into there bedroom at night in case he might incriminate himself - you know, for transparency sake? This is pure partisan bullshit. Holder gave all the documents there are. He has no legal obligation to hand over documentation of conversations within the DOJ in somehow the hope that Darrell Issa will be able to find anything incriminating, in spite of absolutely no evidence. But hey, if Issa is all about transparency to nth degree, let him hand over to the DOJ all documentation of communication from his office - you know, just to see if he might incriminate himself. Fvcking pathetic.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Nonsense. Does Barack and Michelle need to let a camera into there bedroom at night in case he might incriminate himself - you know, for transparency sake? This is pure partisan bullshit. Holder gave all the documents there are. He has no legal obligation to hand over documentation of conversations within the DOJ in somehow the hope that Darrell Issa will be able to find anything incriminating, in spite of absolutely no evidence. But hey, if Issa is all about transparency to nth degree, let him hand over to the DOJ all documentation of communication from his office - you know, just to see if he might incriminate himself. Fvcking pathetic.

Are you suggesting that Republicans would drum up a story just to do damage to the President? Do you have no respect for the institution of Congress?

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

[Pooky 3,347]

Nonsense. Does Barack and Michelle need to let a camera into there bedroom at night in case he might incriminate himself - you know, for transparency sake? This is pure partisan bullshit. Holder gave all the documents there are. He has no legal obligation to hand over documentation of conversations within the DOJ in somehow the hope that Darrell Issa will be able to find anything incriminating, in spite of absolutely no evidence. But hey, if Issa is all about transparency to nth degree, let him hand over to the DOJ all documentation of communication from his office - you know, just to see if he might incriminate himself. Fvcking pathetic.

So, you're okay with AG Holder lying under oath to the Congressional Oversight Committee?

The testimony to that effect has been widely reported and it's the only reason Issa has been able to push this so hard. If Eric Holder had admitted lying, and maybe apologized to the families of Brian Terry and Jaime Zapata, this would have died quietly and been long forgotten come election time.

But he couldn't. Now, by bailing out the AG by invoking Executive Privilege, the President has opened up the White House to suspicion of direct involvement in the botched operation, regardless of whether there was any White House involvement or not. And it was all so unnecessary, if only Holder had respected the office of Attorney General and the oath he took before testifying to the Committee.