106 replies to this topic

[TyGuy]

I know.  It was a joke.

[belercous]

I would have thought that Mr. Fife would have said something by now about being off-topic. I only went back 30-some posts, none of which addressed the O.P. which was about the W.H. approving a comtempt of Congress vote. The answer to which is "No."

Seems we can get off-topic for some issues but not others. Selective enforcement of the rules?

[ishmo]

belercous, on 25 June 2012 - 12:05 AM, said:

Seems we can get off-topic for some issues but not others. Selective enforcement of the rules?

Thanks for the chuckle belercous.  I found it quite hilarious that you as a self professed liberal would play the victim/discrimination card.   lmao

[Molly B.]

belercous, on 25 June 2012 - 12:05 AM, said:

Selective enforcement of the rules?

That's it.  Looks like I will have to give up all the hours in the day fighting for right to carry and instead spend it here moderating grown men who would rather massage their egos with their prowess at political debate - wasting precious time and resources with insult and disrespect.

Maybe it would just be better to start an automatic delete of all such nonsense.  Or better yet, I think a more simple approach would be to simply suspend posting privileges for those who continue to ignore the rules listed in our code of conduct.  And before you start whining about being singled out, bel, this is not just about you; but you're the one who accuses me/us of selective enforcement of the rules.  YOU! The very one we have given a wider latitude and suffered your incessant breaking of the rules because we want  all sides of the political spectrum to participate here.

There are more important tasks at hand than babysitting grown men.  Which will it be?

[TTIN]

Molly B., on 25 June 2012 - 07:07 AM, said:

belercous, on 25 June 2012 - 12:05 AM, said:

Selective enforcement of the rules?

That's it.  Looks like I will have to give up all the hours in the day fighting for right to carry and instead spend it here moderating grown men who would rather massage their egos with their prowess at political debate - wasting precious time and resources with insult and disrespect.

Maybe it would just be better to start an automatic delete of all such nonsense.  Or better yet, I think a more simple approach would be to simply suspend posting privileges for those who continue to ignore the rules listed in our code of conduct.  And before you start whining about being singled out, bel, this is not just about you; but you're the one who accuses me/us of selective enforcement of the rules.  YOU! The very one we have given a wider latitude and suffered your incessant breaking of the rules because we want  all sides of the political spectrum to participate here.

There are more important tasks at hand than babysitting grown men.  Which will it be?

You tell 'em,Molly!

[Mr. Fife]

belercous, on 25 June 2012 - 12:05 AM, said:

I would have thought that Mr. Fife would have said something by now about being off-topic.

I'm taking FF's wise advise. Thanks for thinking about me though.

[belercous]

Ishmo; I was only pointing out someone's (not Molly's or any mod's) complaining about getting off topic in another thread (before I had a chance to respond), but then not mentiniong anything about getting off topic in another thread. I wasn't "playing the victim," I was pointing out a discrepency in the person's invocation of the rules.

Molly; My comment wasn't directed towards you, or any mod. See my reply PM. I'm not whining about being singled out, please review my post. Perhaps you've read something into my post which I did not intend. You've been quite fair to me & have no qualms about how you police the forum. You've even asked me, unsolicited, if a particular post offended me, so you are pretty even-handed. (For all here who weren't privvy to the PM, I told her that it's pretty hard to offend me & that I won't complain to her, or any mod, about another's post. I don't tattle & I don't want to get anyone into trouble) You (& all here) know that I've toned my act down from how I started out, I'm trying. Again, my comment was not directed towards you, I'm sorry if you took it that way.

This post is off-topic so I'm done unless it gets back on topic, but I believe the OP's question has been answered.

[Jeffrey]

Well this was only a matter of time:  http://www.foxnews.c...ocus-on-racism/

Obvious sign they are losing, is obvious.

[Bud]

Like I have said before, this will most likely be the most important election in which  I have ever voted. I have been voting since 1968 and none have as many crisis' as we are facing now.

Obama is an epic fail and he is continuing to fail. His one saving grace is he is beginning to make Jimmy Carter look better.

[ishmo]

Bud, on 26 June 2012 - 12:09 PM, said:

Like I have said before, this will most likely be the most important election in which  I have ever voted. I have been voting since 1968 and none have as many crisis' as we are facing now.

Obama is an epic fail and he is continuing to fail. His one saving grace is he is beginning to make Jimmy Carter look better.

You'll get no argument on that from Carter, check his recent op-ed in the NYT.  Jmho but it's a pretty sorry state of the union when Carter looks good.

A Cruel and Unusual Record

[Molly B.]

belercous, on 25 June 2012 - 09:27 PM, said:

Molly; My comment wasn't directed towards you, or any mod. See my reply PM. I'm not whining about being singled out, please review my post. Perhaps you've read something into my post which I did not intend. You've been quite fair to me & have no qualms about how you police the forum. You've even asked me, unsolicited, if a particular post offended me, so you are pretty even-handed. (For all here who weren't privvy to the PM, I told her that it's pretty hard to offend me & that I won't complain to her, or any mod, about another's post. I don't tattle & I don't want to get anyone into trouble) You (& all here) know that I've toned my act down from how I started out, I'm trying. Again, my comment was not directed towards you, I'm sorry if you took it that way.

Bel, sorry for misunderstanding your post.  Since you did not quote or direct your comment to a poster, I thought you were complaining about the moderators/me. My apologies.

And now, back to our regularly scheduled topic -

[gravyboy77]

Jeffrey, on 26 June 2012 - 11:51 AM, said:

Well this was only a matter of time:  http://www.foxnews.c...ocus-on-racism/

Obvious sign they are losing, is obvious.

I've heard of trying to change the subject but C'mon.....Pulling out the race card? When i heard dear old Pelosi blaming the Republicans for trying to get Holder because of voter suppression i thought the old bat had lost her marbles.

It's starting to look like this was the plan all along, push Pelosi out there with some outlandish accusation to distract from the F&F investigation then use their liberal media pals to parrot her talking points.

I read this in the WAPO yesterday:

http://www.washingto...ss=rss_opinions

Quote

An attorney general lacking trust

By  Michael Gerson, Published: June 25   The Washington Post
  
Fights between Congress and the executive branch over access to information are a staple of American politics. Every president will prefer less disclosure about the messy internal processes of his administration. Congressional investigators suspecting scandal prefer more. In the end, some accommodation short of a constitutional crisis is usually achieved.

The government’s “gun-walking” program would be considered a scandal in any administration, involving 2,000 loose firearms and a dead Border Patrol agent. But an accommodation with congressional investigators has not been reached. The balance of powers has become a showdown. And the main reason is Attorney General Eric Holder.

In a February 2011 letter to Congress, the Justice Department denied any knowledge of “Operation Fast and Furious.” During May congressional testimony, Holder claimed that he had only recently learned of the matter. Both letter and testimony turned out to be false. Holder’s top aides had reviewed wiretapping applications containing specific details. Holder had received memos referencing the operation. Congress had been left under a false impression for nine months.

The Justice Department’s response to this disclosure was to fight further disclosures — permitting investigation into the original program but not into the misstatements and corrections that followed. Holder has absurdly claimed credit for providing 7,600 pages (about 8 percent) of the material investigators have requested, as though the problem might not be found on Page 7,601.

Any Justice Department would defend its prerogatives. But this one has also exhausted its credibility. False statements have given way to transparent obstruction. Eric Holder treated Congress with contempt long before it considered citing him for it.

“I take pride in being careful, not intemperate,” Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.), a former state Supreme Court judge, told me. “But I’m just fed up.” He is particularly offended by the lack of accountability. “There were 2,000 weapons that walked. Who knows how many more agents are at risk? Yet when I asked if it happened in Texas, I got no answer. Another stonewall.” These events, says Cornyn, “raise a question: What does it take to get fired in Eric Holder’s Justice Department?”

Cornyn has called for Holder’s resignation. Unlike the legal determination of contempt, this is a cumulative judgment. Holder began his tenure by supporting a special prosecutor to investigate enhanced interrogation by CIA agents, even though career prosecutors found insufficient evidence for charges — leading seven former CIA directors to denounce his assault on the institution. The attorney general proposed a New York civilian trial that would have given Khalid Sheik Mohammed a forum to embrace martyrdom and encourage violence — leading to a revolt of New York Democratic politicians and the removal of the case from Holder’s direct authority. His handling of the Fast and Furious case was botched from the start — requiring President Obama to assert executive privilege to cover a trail of incompetence and forcing Democratic members of Congress to rally in the cause of opacity and mediocrity.

The problem is not primarily a matter of ideology. Holder is the critic of enhanced interrogation who defends the use of killer drones against U.S. citizens. He is the enemy of indefinite detention at Guantanamo Bay prison who has institutionalized indefinite detention at Guantanamo Bay prison. His views seem to conform exactly to the contours of the president’s political requirements at any given moment. “Like a cushion,” David Lloyd George is reputed to have said of one opponent, “he always bore the impress of the last man who sat on him.”

Yet this does not stop the lecturing. Unlike his congressional detractors, Holder was not “scared” of what Mohammed would say at trial. He prefers not to “cower.” He says his critics lack “confidence in the American system of justice.” It is Eric Holder’s distinctive contribution to the American political system: self-righteousness without the inconvenience of principle.

“The supreme arrogance, the lack of accountability,” says Cornyn, “are driving people up the wall. . . . Is he going to be the chief law enforcement officer of the United States or the political arm of the administration? Every time Eric Holder has had a choice to make, he has made the political choice, not the one grounded in a reasonable interpretation of the law.”

This presents an immediate, practical challenge. Holder’s appointment of two prosecutors — one an Obama campaign donor — to investigate administration national security leaks is discredited before it begins. Which points to an immediate, practical need: an attorney general who inspires more trust than contempt.

[GarandFan]

Tompo, on 20 June 2012 - 02:23 PM, said:

So, republicans get the vote they want in committee.  It then goes to the House.  Say it passes the House, it goes to the Senate.

Tompo:

If you are going to play the role of agitator, you need to learn how the contempt process works.  It takes only one house of congress (either the House or the Senate) to hold someone in contempt of congress.

That you don't know such basic things causes folks here (rightly or wrongly) to suspect you're also misinformed on other things ... perhaps even the very premises of your arguments.

[gravyboy77]

Federal Farmer, on 21 June 2012 - 06:08 PM, said:

Tompo, on 21 June 2012 - 04:48 PM, said:

w00dc4ip, on 21 June 2012 - 04:21 PM, said:

• The question at this point is, "who knew what and when?"
  
• The sitting Attorney General has "incorrectly" answered that question or refused to answer it every time he's been asked.
  
• You're trying really hard to blame this too on the previous administration, but there is no need to ask the previous AG about a program that didn't begin until 2009, 10 months after the current AG assumed the office.
  
• Issa is requesting documents (and has the legal authority to do so) that would answer the primary question.
  
• Pretty much everyone knows what happened, the only question that really remains is when did everyone know and why didn't they stop it before a US Border Patrol agent got killed?
  
• Additionally, ATF firing a whistleblower could have criminal consequences, particularly if that action was politically motivated and came directly from DOJ higher ups at Holder or Obama's request.

No, I'm not trying to blame anyone. Current admin or previous.  But the FACT is, gun walking to Mexico DID begin under the Bush admin Justice Dept.   if you were trying to find out the truth, you would naturally want to interview the members of the Justice dept when the program began.  Including AG Mukasey.   iss has not called anyone from Mukasey's Justice Dept.
issa is demanding documents he legally cannot have.  There is precedent for this.  Other admin. has used executive privilege is similar circumstances.  If Holder released the documents Issa wants, he'd be breaking the law.
the program WAS stopped after the agent was killed.

This operation was pretty much just a set-up to justify Demand Letter 3 and to boost the numbers to vilify US gun shops and gun owners.

Here is the article on letter 3:
http://www.cbsnews.c...un-regulations/


Update: so it looks like a deal to head off the contempt of congress vote was rejected when the Obama administration said it would give republicans 30 (yep-you read that right 30) documents out of the thousands requested. There were 140,000 documents related to F&F and the DOJ has handed over only 7600 to house investigators. i would also like to refresh everyone's memory about what alot of these documents that the 'most transparent administration in this nations history' handed over to the House committee looked like:
http://theconservati...--.aspx?ref=rss

Not only is the vote going forward on Thursday but one Democrat so far Rep. Jim Matheson (D-Utah) and possibly  many more are going to be voting for contempt. The NRA has decided to score lawmakers on their votes on Thursday so this ought to be interesting to see how many of them flip and vote against Obama/Holder.

[belercous]

Jeffrey: Goodf luck running with that one. Since the Dems are obviously "loaing," can I put you down for a friendly $10.00 wager which says Obama gets re-elected? Loser pays IllinoisCarry.Com. No matter who loses, we all win. It gioes to a good cause. I do not stand to profit from this, nor does IllinoisCarry.Com sponsor or condone this activity. I am in no way affiliated with IllinoisCarry.Com other than as a forum member.

What say dawg, is you in or is you think Romney will lose?

Bud: I don't have you down for taking up my bet. It's only $10.00, why not go for it? You seem to believe Obama is an "epic" failure, so why not put a Hamilton behind your belief? $10.00 is the cost of lunch. Is you in or is you not so sure about your statement? I can cover the bet, even if Jeffrey joins in I'm only on the hook for $1,050.00. What say?

Ishmo: I haven't seen you taking up the bet either. Why for is that? Obama is such a big failure, how could he possibly get re-elected? Don't tell me it's about all the campaign $ Obama will have because the GOP will have big coin going into 503© & the super-pacs which will dwarf what the Dems can raise. The GOP has Big Biz, Inc. behind them & several billionaires contributing as well. Soros, Buffet & the unions will be easily outspent. Can I put you down for $10.00? Why are you waiting so long to put up lunch money?

GravyBoy: I'm not disagreeing with you a bit on Eric Holder. He should go. Something doesn't "smell" right with the "Fast & Furious" situation. I'm a liberal Democrat, but I won't even try to defend this B.S. I gave him the benefit of the doubt & waited for more info. I've waited long enough & have enough info now. They can hang his axe for all I care.

GarandFan: You do know that being held in Contempt of Congress is mostly symbolic. Karl Rove still has the charge hanging over his head. But the charge is closer to a parking ticket than a real crime. Rarely does anyone actually serve time for such infraction.

[ishmo]

belercous, on 27 June 2012 - 10:25 PM, said:

Ishmo: I haven't seen you taking up the bet either. Why for is that? Obama is such a big failure, how could he possibly get re-elected? Don't tell me it's about all the campaign $ Obama will have because the GOP will have big coin going into 503© & the super-pacs which will dwarf what the Dems can raise. The GOP has Big Biz, Inc. behind them & several billionaires contributing as well. Soros, Buffet & the unions will be easily outspent. Can I put you down for $10.00? Why are you waiting so long to put up lunch money?

Can you point out where I said Obama was a big failure.  All I did was cite an article by a former President that noted some exceptions he had with Obama.  You're the one that chose to go off on a rant citing the Democrats talking points about Obama being outspent and the msm pushing those points when it came out Romney would have a fair amount of money for the race.

$10.00 is lunch money??  You must eat in some cheap places friend.  When I go out to lunch that's not even tip money.  I will be renewing my site membership early and making a donation as well since MollyB and some others here have some events coming up.  Jmho the money will be more useful to them right now than in Nov.

Once again have a nice summer and I hope your friend recovers from the stroke with no complications.

Edited by ishmo, 28 June 2012 - 05:51 AM.

[belercous]

That's OK if you're not sure about Obama losing. I'm certain he won't too, although his chances just went down a bit with the HealthCare ruling SCOTUS handed down today.

Thanks for your concern about my friend, he'll be alright. Have agreat summer too.