What answers do you want?

29 posts / 0 new

I'm a strong conservative but I'm no partisan hack. But this post is not about me,it's about you. So which of the following questions do you want answered regarding fast and furious?

1) Who under the Bush administration launched the preceeding program and why? Just give us a name please.

2) Who under the Obama administration authorized fast & furious and why? Just give us a name please.

3) Why did the justice department lie to congress and deny the existance of this program?

Now the president is asserting executive privelige. Is it unreasonable to hold this administration to it's promise of transparancy? The answers to these questions should be easy and could bring whole sorry mess to an end. Why should we not have them?

Which questions do you want answered?

rigel1's picture
rigel1
Joined:
Jan. 31, 2011 7:49 am

Comments

What is "PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY"?

In today's society... plausible deniability is 6 guns/5 bullets. Through "plausible deniability" EVERYONE is INNOCENT!

But... that's not the case at all!

The end result of the 6 guns/5 bullets was an EXECUTION!

We are distracted and played to search for the wrong reasons. In my example, it would be "who's" gun had the empty chamber? We should be focused on why was there an execution in the first place.

What I NO LONGER have the ability to do, is to be distracted by the "plausible deniability" aspects that are played out by the puppet masters. I simply can't do it anymore. All I can see now are the results and the logical endgame scenarios.

The logical endgame scenario is that there is NO difference between the W. Bush Presidency and the Obama Presidency. The logical endgame scenario is that the GOAL is to further disarm the American.

The logical disarming of the American brings "total control" a step closer.

"Total Control", unfortunately looks a lot like "The Hunger Games".

Reasonably look at the direction our world is headed. Then tell me that it's not moving towards a "Brave New World/1984/Animal Farm" society.

Are we moving TOWARDS that kind of dystopian society? Or are we moving AWAY from that kind of dystopian society?

Are we becoming a more "FREE" society? Or are we becoming a more "CONTROLLED" society?

OUR INTERNET WAS JUST THREATENED A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO!

All the internet does is connect information. So... our "INFORMATION" was really under a specific threat. When one studies these events and what are the specific ramifications of said threats... one WILL realize that we are in dire straits.

We are in dire straits.

Fletcher Christian's picture
Fletcher Christian
Joined:
Feb. 15, 2012 12:49 pm

I want those answers and I want to know

How many more undercover agents will die because of Issa's investigations?

How much stronger the drug cartels will become because of us weakening our own agencies?

What new gun laws are conservatives proposing to stop US citizens from buying firearms in a free market?

And what type of gun laws are conservatives proposing to keep firearms out of any group's that conservatives oppose?

And, the Border Patrol agent who was killed, Terry, do we know if he was killed by a gun from the gunwalking Fast and Furious deal, or were guns from that found with the other guns? And I thought guns didn't kill people, people kill people. So why the fuss about the program at all?

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 8:21 pm

Phaedrus76 - Thank you for illustrating my point. No one plays the "Shell Game" or "3 Card Monte" like you!

EXAMPLE: Issa... there's a "BAD GUY" that we can sort out from the rest of the Motley Crew... yeah, right.

So I take it that you're all for stronger drug laws! Ha! What a bunch of crap!

"DANGEROUS DRUG CARTELS?" We ARE the "dangerous drug cartels!" In Viet Nam, we shipped drugs inside of the coffins of our DEAD sons back to the U.S.! We grow the opium and support drug cartels all over the world!

Again, again, and again... you "know" this. Yet, "pretend" that you don't. What a phony turd!

So the Fast & Furious was only a "tracking" mechanism... just to see WHERE they'd "pop" up and "WHAT" people would do with them... yeah, right. Just like the "UNDERWEAR BOMBER" was a "tracking" mechanism and "allowed" on the plane (even though he was on a 'no fly' list) just to see WHERE he'd "pop" up and WHO he would talk to... yeah, right.

These are all just silly lapses in judgements. Oops! There's NO WAY that these are FALSE FLAG operations... You know... STAGED events with very real consequences meant to achieve a goal that would otherwise be unachievable? Nah! Couldn't be. I mean, you'd have to have something like OPERATION NORTHWOODS to accomplish such tasks. Oh yeah... we do. (But you know all of this already, don't you?)

Blaming this on ONE person is like handing out speeding tickets at the Indy 500.

Nobody's buying this trick anymore. We've all seen it before. We all know how it ends. It ends with more freedoms being eroded.

Phaedrus76 - You're cowardly game is to continually put the wrong emPHAsis on the wrong syLLAble.

Therefore the message gets disjointed and lost.

It doesn't work anymore. At least not on the internet. See, there aren't any time constraints or bells and whistles to distract from the true meaning. There are too many REAL people like me with REAL world experience exposing the secrets behind the magic tricks and the phonies.

That's why folks of your ilk want it gone.

BTW... you owe me an apology. But since only a REAL person could give an apology... I don't suspect that you're capable of it. Since you're not a "real" person, that is. You are a "talking point" in the guise of a real person.

"Me"... as real as it gets, baby! Worts and all! (That is, other than the fake name... hee, hee!)

Fletcher Christian's picture
Fletcher Christian
Joined:
Feb. 15, 2012 12:49 pm
Quote Phaedrus76:

I want those answers and I want to know

How many more undercover agents will die because of Issa's investigations?

How much stronger the drug cartels will become because of us weakening our own agencies?

What new gun laws are conservatives proposing to stop US citizens from buying firearms in a free market?

And what type of gun laws are conservatives proposing to keep firearms out of any group's that conservatives oppose?

And, the Border Patrol agent who was killed, Terry, do we know if he was killed by a gun from the gunwalking Fast and Furious deal, or were guns from that found with the other guns? And I thought guns didn't kill people, people kill people. So why the fuss about the program at all?

Well I don't want to get distracted with other theories, so I would respectfully request that you stay on topic. I would simply like to hear Holder tell congress this:

You don't need any documents. I will tell you. We lied to congress because we felt trapped and thought we could get away with it. And I am the highest ranking ofiicial to know about fast and furious. I approved it. The buck stops with me.

Does anyone believe that any explaination other than this could possibly be true? He needs to man up and put this mess to bed. When the justice department breaks the law, goes rogue and people die. Somebody needs to be held to account. Am I right?

rigel1's picture
rigel1
Joined:
Jan. 31, 2011 7:49 am

This topic is entirely a political witch hunt. Let us talk about the fascists taking over our country, and Issa is raising this topic to distract us from his funders.

chuckle8's picture
chuckle8
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote rigel1:

I'm a strong conservative but I'm no partisan hack. But this post is not about me,it's about you. So which of the following questions do you want answered regarding fast and furious?

1) Who under the Bush administration launched the preceeding program and why? Just give us a name please.

2) Who under the Obama administration authorized fast & furious and why? Just give us a name please.

3) Why did the justice department lie to congress and deny the existance of this program?

Now the president is asserting executive privelige. Is it unreasonable to hold this administration to it's promise of transparancy? The answers to these questions should be easy and could bring whole sorry mess to an end. Why should we not have them?

Which questions do you want answered?

rigel you are absolutely a partisan hack. You provide us with a false choice. None of the questions you have provided here are the ones I want answers to in regards to fast and the furious.

ah2
Joined:
Dec. 13, 2010 10:00 pm

I don't give a rat's ass about Fast and Frivilous. It's another stupid issue to distract the sheeple from the real issues in this country. I hope they have about 100 more F &F's. Send as much of that shit out of the country as possible.

People are starving in this country and that in itself is going to lead to more crime. More Americans are going to lose their lives because of that little fact than they could ever dream of on the border.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am
Quote rigel1:

I'm a strong conservative but I'm no partisan hack. But this post is not about me,it's about you. So which of the following questions do you want answered regarding fast and furious?

Wasn't this just an undercover operation? I don't understand the problem. It's always a bad thing when one of the good guys is killed. If he was killed from a gun we sold them to advance the operation, or a gun they bought somewhere else, it's still a bad thing. I can hardly see why Obama or Holder is at fault for this. Do you want to end all undercover operations?

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote rigel1:
Quote Phaedrus76:

I want those answers and I want to know

How many more undercover agents will die because of Issa's investigations?

How much stronger the drug cartels will become because of us weakening our own agencies?

What new gun laws are conservatives proposing to stop US citizens from buying firearms in a free market?

And what type of gun laws are conservatives proposing to keep firearms out of any group's that conservatives oppose?

And, the Border Patrol agent who was killed, Terry, do we know if he was killed by a gun from the gunwalking Fast and Furious deal, or were guns from that found with the other guns? And I thought guns didn't kill people, people kill people. So why the fuss about the program at all?

Well I don't want to get distracted with other theories, so I would respectfully request that you stay on topic. I would simply like to hear Holder tell congress this:

You don't need any documents. I will tell you. We lied to congress because we felt trapped and thought we could get away with it. And I am the highest ranking ofiicial to know about fast and furious. I approved it. The buck stops with me.

Does anyone believe that any explaination other than this could possibly be true? He needs to man up and put this mess to bed. When the justice department breaks the law, goes rogue and people die. Somebody needs to be held to account. Am I right?

First rule of large organizations is that it is a good bet that the top dog doesn't know much about what goes on. And a program tracking two gun wholesalers in Phoenix and Prescot, AZ is about as a small a program as is imaginable to corporate titans and Wall Street lawyers like Holder.
Did someone know about the program sure?
Was the program illegal? No, DEA and ATF have all types of undercover operations, and using gun shops to aid in tracking drug cartels is interesting. My bet is the drug cartels have all manner of internal security for drug running, and distribution and moving cash back to Mexico, but had no qualms about being loose and sloppy in getting firearms.

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 8:21 pm

With 100,000 shootings a year, 30,000 deaths a year, why is Terry's death more significant? 1>100,000 can only be true in conservative math class.

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Oh, but you forgot all about the FACT that Obama is using this program to TAKE AWAY YOUR GUNS!!

Unless you keep that firmly in your frontal lobes, this Bush originated, "sting" gone wrong will be open to many other explanations for the 'evidence' cited. People "in charge" may really not have known about a field strategy. The new administration might have not known what was hidden from it until it came out from under the rug. Protecting the lives of those involved in undercover drug war operations could also justify a fair amount of pr lies to the press.

What is hilarious is that this stupid F and F attack on Holder is blunting the disgust expressed by Progressives about his hesitance about Wall St. On the other hand, Holder is strong on electoral integrity and that is something the GOPimps would like to have out of the way. With any luck, Obama and Holder may wake up to the fact that they cannot keep the banksters from screwing them unless they confront them in the name of the "99."

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 12:15 pm

If Issa were even slightly concerned with justice for the slain border patrol officer, he would be trying to gather ALL of the related information from ALL of the various government entities: ATF, FBI, DEA as well as any state and local authorities even peripherally involved. But instead, Issa focuses entirely on one man's deliberative legal notes in the DOJ as if he and he alone (with conspiratory help from his boss, Obama of course) is responsible for covering up a covert plan to provide guns to criminals as a means of taking away guns from law abiding citizens. Who writes this stuff?

You would have to laugh at this, except for the fact that there are so many people who willing to buy into this. It's almost funny that so many people willingly buy into this, except for the fact that the future of our democracy is hanging in the balance. Justice will be served, unfortunately it will have to wait to be served as cold leftovers after the election. The family of the slain border patrol officer should be disgusted with this entire charade. We should all be disgusted.

Laborisgood's picture
Laborisgood
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Bush_Wacker:

I don't give a rat's ass about Fast and Frivilous.

I know you don't. You are not a friend or family member of Brian Terry or any of the others who were murdered by the goons who Holder armed. It's easy for you not to want any answers. But don't the victims deserve to know why their loved ones died?

rigel1's picture
rigel1
Joined:
Jan. 31, 2011 7:49 am
Quote douglaslee:

With 100,000 shootings a year, 30,000 deaths a year, why is Terry's death more significant? 1>100,000 can only be true in conservative math class.

Because those killers were not intentionally armed by the feds. If you or I gave a weapon to a homicidal maniac and he used it, we would go to prison. If we couldn't get away with it then why should Holder? No special privileges for the ruling class.

Um, BTW. You need not worry. Conservatives want all murderers to go to prison. We don't think the 30,000 should walk so your fears are groundless.

rigel1's picture
rigel1
Joined:
Jan. 31, 2011 7:49 am
Quote rigel1:
Quote douglaslee:

With 100,000 shootings a year, 30,000 deaths a year, why is Terry's death more significant? 1>100,000 can only be true in conservative math class.

Because those killers were not intentionally armed by the feds. If you or I gave a weapon to a homicidal maniac and he used it, we would go to prison. If we couldn't get away with it then why should Holder? No special privileges for the ruling class.

Um, BTW. You need not worry. Conservatives want all murderers to go to prison. We don't think the 30,000 should walk so your fears are groundless.

Ok, just ignore my posts then.

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

It AMAZES me when people actually advocate a double standard for a ruling class.

rigel1 made a valid point. If one of "us" were to give a KNOWN murderous entity a weapon... it would be argued in a court of law (because we would be arrested) that "we" would be somewhat responsible for the actions that murderous entity made with the help of our weapon that we gave them.

What is SO scary about the EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE 14th AMENDMENT?

When folks advocate for a separate set of rules for the ruling class, they are actually defending the infamous stance of Richard Nixon.

Remember when asked if what he did was illegal, he stated (to the effect) "That when the PRESIDENT does it... it is NOT illegal."

Really? So are there a lot of NIXON FANS here? I doubt it. It amazes me how the brain works.

When a former "bad guy" does an illegal act... the horror. Now that a "good guy" does the SAME illegal act... it's OK. It's normal. We should look at the "good guy" for what he REALLY is... and that he's NOT a "good guy"... he's a "BAD GUY"! Get that "bad guy" out of here! How dare that "bad guy" trick us into thinking he was a "good guy"!

This reaction is fascinating and equally disturbing for me. I can't do it.

I don't know how the "Alan Colmes" of our society do it. But they do! They do it everyday... RIGHT HERE for everybody to see. It's incredible. They get called out on it and turn around and DO IT AGAIN the next day!

Incredible. Shameful. But incredible.

Fletcher Christian's picture
Fletcher Christian
Joined:
Feb. 15, 2012 12:49 pm

rigel1 made a valid point. If one of "us" were to give a KNOWN murderous entity a weapon... it would be argued in a court of law (because we would be arrested) that "we" would be somewhat responsible for the actions that murderous entity made with the help of our weapon that we gave them.

What is SO scary about the EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE 14th AMENDMENT?

Guns are sold to bad guys all the time at gun shows. No background checks required. At gun shows background checks are considered 2nd amendment infringements.

http://www.gunshowundercover.org/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQEDvqmAfqg

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

For the conspiracy nuts, you can bury your guns in the backyard because 'they' ARE coming for them.

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Fletcher Christian:

rigel1 made a valid point. If one of "us" were to give a KNOWN murderous entity a weapon... it would be argued in a court of law (because we would be arrested) that "we" would be somewhat responsible for the actions that murderous entity made with the help of our weapon that we gave them.

Rigel1 did not make a valid point. It was an undercover operation which went wrong. Oh wait, I am repeating myself. Who cares, really, you guys simply want to say bad things about anything that is connected to Obama so he loses the election and Romney can destroy the country again. Good for you.

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Dr. Econ:
Quote Fletcher Christian:

rigel1 made a valid point. If one of "us" were to give a KNOWN murderous entity a weapon... it would be argued in a court of law (because we would be arrested) that "we" would be somewhat responsible for the actions that murderous entity made with the help of our weapon that we gave them.

Rigel1 did not make a valid point. It was an undercover operation which went wrong. Oh wait, I am repeating myself. Who cares, really, you guys simply want to say bad things about anything that is connected to Obama so he loses the election and Romney can destroy the country again. Good for you.

Okay then shouldn't Holder simply come clean and release all of the info? Just do it and avoid the contempt. If he is not guilty of anything, he should stop acting guilty.

rigel1's picture
rigel1
Joined:
Jan. 31, 2011 7:49 am
Quote rigel1:

Okay then shouldn't Holder simply come clean and release all of the info?

ON GOING CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS

delete jan in iowa
Joined:
Feb. 6, 2011 12:16 pm
Quote jan in iowa:
Quote rigel1:

Okay then shouldn't Holder simply come clean and release all of the info?

ON GOING CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS

No need to yell girlfriend :)

I don't think that Holder has made the claim that he cannot release info because it would compromise their own investigation. That simply cannot be used as an excuse to cover their own criminal behavior. The three questions that I proposed would compromise nothing. About two dozen gutsy democrats are now demanding answers as well. I admire their courage. It's looking like Holder may be forced to come clean.

rigel1's picture
rigel1
Joined:
Jan. 31, 2011 7:49 am
Quote rigel1:
Quote jan in iowa:

ON GOING CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS

No need to yell girlfriend :)

I don't think that Holder has made the claim that he cannot release info because it would compromise their own investigation.

Yes, he has and Thom has mentioned it MANY times.

Would you be satisfied if the ongoing investigations were not compromised, really bad drug guys would be arrested and AFTER everything was settled with the investigations . . . AT THAT TIME get the documents?

delete jan in iowa
Joined:
Feb. 6, 2011 12:16 pm
Quote jan in iowa:
Quote rigel1:
Quote jan in iowa:

ON GOING CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS

No need to yell girlfriend :)

I don't think that Holder has made the claim that he cannot release info because it would compromise their own investigation.

Yes, he has and Thom has mentioned it MANY times.

Would you be satisfied if the ongoing investigations were not compromised, really bad drug guys would be arrested and AFTER everything was settled with the investigations . . . AT THAT TIME get the documents?

Fair enough. Then how would answering the three questions that I propose compromise anything? I don't buy it.

rigel1's picture
rigel1
Joined:
Jan. 31, 2011 7:49 am
Quote rigel1:

Fair enough. Then how would answering the three questions that I propose compromise anything? I don't buy it.

Did the Fortune article answer any of your questions?

delete jan in iowa
Joined:
Feb. 6, 2011 12:16 pm

The question whores are asking you to answer for them.

The question whores are asking you to answer for them.

The question whores are asking you to answer for them.

The question whores are asking you to answer for them.

The question whores are asking you to answer for them.

The question whores are asking you to answer for them.

The question whores are asking you to answer for them.

The question whores are asking you to answer for them.

The question whores are asking you to answer for them.

The question whores are asking you to answer for them.

The question whores are asking you to answer for them.

The question whores are asking you to answer for them.

The question whores are asking you to answer for them.

The question whores are asking you to answer for them.

That's right Linda, Linda is exactly right!!!

anonymous green
Joined:
Jan. 5, 2012 11:47 am

Are these song lyrics or what?

delete jan in iowa
Joined:
Feb. 6, 2011 12:16 pm
Quote rigel1:

I don't think that Holder has made the claim that he cannot release info because it would compromise their own investigation. ....

What is the very worse you are saying? That Holder tried to protect a bad undercover operation? So what? Why on earth do you even care about that? I might be very sympathetic to protecting the reputation of investigators whose job it is to fight the Mexican mafia.

This has nothing to do with the decision to vote for Obama, nothing to do with all the other issues that we can actually debate about with facts.

Everyone knows that the only reason the right wing hacks are bringing up this story is for disgusting partisian reasons. And it is a little revolting to try to get political milage from the death of one the courageous people who are fighting the mafia. I mean, it's sickening, disgusting and perverted.

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Currently Chatting

GOP Blocks Equal Pay...again.

Just in time for election season, Senate Republicans blocked legislation aimed at closing the gender pay gap. For the third time since 2012, Republicans refused to allow debate on the Paycheck Fairness Act, and reminded women that the GOP doesn't believe in equal pay for equal work.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system