Page 10 of 11 [ 176 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next

simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075

22 Jun 2012, 2:40 pm

I don't see any evidence of high level conspiracy here. It's just a botched investigation. ATF under Bush lost 100s of guns for 11 gun mule prosecutions. This one lost over 1,000 iiirc trying to catch higher level guys in Mexico after purchase. Drug police try to do this too but if we couldnt track them doing hand to hands, how will they track them over the border?

The ATF testified that they put GPS trackers on some of them but the batteries died. :lol: That's some high powered detective work.

Quote:
The best part is the executive privilege only applies if Obama was involved. By invoking executive privilege he is admitting his involvement by default.


That's not true at all. :lol:



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,577
Location: Seattle-ish

22 Jun 2012, 3:20 pm

marshall wrote:
You don't seem to notice that I resort to contemptuous argument style when it's been made clear that the person I'm arguing with is mentally incapable of reasoned debate. Sorry there's no nicer way to put it but I'm not blessed with extreme patience.


If you think they're incapable, why debate them at all? To put it more flippantly; how is that working out for you?


_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson


JWC
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Feb 2011
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 740
Location: Macondo Wellhead

22 Jun 2012, 3:30 pm

simon_says wrote:
I don't see any evidence of high level conspiracy here. It's just a botched investigation. ATF under Bush lost 100s of guns for 11 gun mule prosecutions. This one lost over 1,000 iiirc trying to catch higher level guys in Mexico after purchase. Drug police try to do this too but if we couldnt track them doing hand to hands, how will they track them over the border?

The ATF testified that they put GPS trackers on some of them but the batteries died. :lol: That's some high powered detective work.

Quote:
The best part is the executive privilege only applies if Obama was involved. By invoking executive privilege he is admitting his involvement by default.


That's not true at all. :lol:


Quote:
The only bases for the invocation of the privilege are the need to protect secret deliberations and communications intended ultimately for the president that pertain to (a) military, or (b) diplomatic, or (c) sensitive national security matters. Just because two or more people in the White House discussed a matter or reviewed documents does not clothe their discussion or their document review with executive privilege. The conversation or document review must be integral to advising the president on his official duties, and it must fit into one or more of (a) or (b) or (c) above.
The invocation of the privilege can only be made by the president himself. Thus, President Obama will need to articulate and explain into which category--(a) or (b) or (c) above--his claim of privilege falls, and he will need to do so personally, either in person or in writing. The mere request by the attorney general for the president to invoke the privilege does not lawfully invoke it. As of this writing, the president has not yet done this.
When the president invokes the privilege, it is to prevent himself or others in the White House from being compelled to testify or to produce documents before a court or before the Congress. Since only the president can invoke the privilege, he must be aware of the subject matter addressed in the subpoenaed documents and he must know that the subject matter was discussed or the subpoenaed documents were reviewed as part of the process of advising him on running the Executive Branch.

-Judge Andrew Napolitano

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/06/ ... z1yYXFkRI3



simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075

22 Jun 2012, 3:36 pm

JWC wrote:
simon_says wrote:
I don't see any evidence of high level conspiracy here. It's just a botched investigation. ATF under Bush lost 100s of guns for 11 gun mule prosecutions. This one lost over 1,000 iiirc trying to catch higher level guys in Mexico after purchase. Drug police try to do this too but if we couldnt track them doing hand to hands, how will they track them over the border?

The ATF testified that they put GPS trackers on some of them but the batteries died. :lol: That's some high powered detective work.

Quote:
The best part is the executive privilege only applies if Obama was involved. By invoking executive privilege he is admitting his involvement by default.


That's not true at all. :lol:


Quote:
The only bases for the invocation of the privilege are the need to protect secret deliberations and communications intended ultimately for the president that pertain to (a) military, or (b) diplomatic, or (c) sensitive national security matters. Just because two or more people in the White House discussed a matter or reviewed documents does not clothe their discussion or their document review with executive privilege. The conversation or document review must be integral to advising the president on his official duties, and it must fit into one or more of (a) or (b) or (c) above.
The invocation of the privilege can only be made by the president himself. Thus, President Obama will need to articulate and explain into which category--(a) or (b) or (c) above--his claim of privilege falls, and he will need to do so personally, either in person or in writing. The mere request by the attorney general for the president to invoke the privilege does not lawfully invoke it. As of this writing, the president has not yet done this.
When the president invokes the privilege, it is to prevent himself or others in the White House from being compelled to testify or to produce documents before a court or before the Congress. Since only the president can invoke the privilege, he must be aware of the subject matter addressed in the subpoenaed documents and he must know that the subject matter was discussed or the subpoenaed documents were reviewed as part of the process of advising him on running the Executive Branch.

-Judge Andrew Napolitano

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/06/ ... z1yYXFkRI3



You said this proves he was involved. Your above comment has nothing to do with proving your claim that it establishes that he's involved. There is no question that the matter has been discussed since the news broke.

Even if he incorrectly invoked it in the judgement of a Fox News personality, it doesnt establish involvement in the active program at all. Your claim make no sense.



JWC
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Feb 2011
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 740
Location: Macondo Wellhead

22 Jun 2012, 3:40 pm

simon_says wrote:
JWC wrote:
simon_says wrote:
I don't see any evidence of high level conspiracy here. It's just a botched investigation. ATF under Bush lost 100s of guns for 11 gun mule prosecutions. This one lost over 1,000 iiirc trying to catch higher level guys in Mexico after purchase. Drug police try to do this too but if we couldnt track them doing hand to hands, how will they track them over the border?

The ATF testified that they put GPS trackers on some of them but the batteries died. :lol: That's some high powered detective work.

Quote:
The best part is the executive privilege only applies if Obama was involved. By invoking executive privilege he is admitting his involvement by default.


That's not true at all. :lol:


Quote:
The only bases for the invocation of the privilege are the need to protect secret deliberations and communications intended ultimately for the president that pertain to (a) military, or (b) diplomatic, or (c) sensitive national security matters. Just because two or more people in the White House discussed a matter or reviewed documents does not clothe their discussion or their document review with executive privilege. The conversation or document review must be integral to advising the president on his official duties, and it must fit into one or more of (a) or (b) or (c) above.
The invocation of the privilege can only be made by the president himself. Thus, President Obama will need to articulate and explain into which category--(a) or (b) or (c) above--his claim of privilege falls, and he will need to do so personally, either in person or in writing. The mere request by the attorney general for the president to invoke the privilege does not lawfully invoke it. As of this writing, the president has not yet done this.
When the president invokes the privilege, it is to prevent himself or others in the White House from being compelled to testify or to produce documents before a court or before the Congress. Since only the president can invoke the privilege, he must be aware of the subject matter addressed in the subpoenaed documents and he must know that the subject matter was discussed or the subpoenaed documents were reviewed as part of the process of advising him on running the Executive Branch.

-Judge Andrew Napolitano

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/06/ ... z1yYXFkRI3



You said this proves he was involved. Your above comment has nothing to do with proving your claim that it establishes that he's involved. He will claim some reason for invoking it and nothing will come of it. He'll say it's dealing with deliberations or security or methods. As it's been used by many other Presidents. There is no question that the matter has been discussed since the news broke.

Even if he incorrectly invoked it in the judgement of a Fox News personality, it doesnt establish involement at all. Your claim make no sense.


By "involved" I meant he knew about it. As, the above quote explains:

Quote:
Just because two or more people in the White House discussed a matter or reviewed documents does not clothe their discussion or their document review with executive privilege. The conversation or document review must be integral to advising the president on his official duties, and it must fit into one or more of (a) or (b) or (c) above.



simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075

22 Jun 2012, 3:57 pm

You need to differentiate current deliberations about what to do about this versus knowing about it back in the day. Or that the deliberations that were "ultimately intended for the President" ever actually made it that far. "Ultimately intended" is a pretty loose standard. As is the time factor.

Quote:
"The reason is the president believes the documents in question are "not anything material to [the] Fast and Furious [investigation]." Instead these documents are "internal deliberations within the Justice Dept" about how the administration planned to respond to congressional investigators and media inquiries about Fast and Furious - not the actual Fast and Furious investigation itself, per the same senior administration official.

Read more: http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2012/ ... z1yYdN7sVd


That's the WH line. They can throw in something about security implications of the advice being disclosed if they need to meet the standards of Fox News advisors. None of that establishes involvement by the President. You are playing talk radio Dungeons and Dragons. Have fun with it but that doenst make it reality.



JWC
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Feb 2011
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 740
Location: Macondo Wellhead

22 Jun 2012, 4:16 pm

simon_says wrote:
You need to differentiate current deliberations about what to do about this versus knowing about it back in the day. Or that the deliberations that were "ultimately intended for the President" ever actually made it that far. "Ultimately intended" is a pretty loose standard. As is the time factor.

Quote:
"The reason is the president believes the documents in question are "not anything material to [the] Fast and Furious [investigation]." Instead these documents are "internal deliberations within the Justice Dept" about how the administration planned to respond to congressional investigators and media inquiries about Fast and Furious - not the actual Fast and Furious investigation itself, per the same senior administration official.

Read more: http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2012/ ... z1yYdN7sVd


That's the WH line. They can throw in something about security implications of the advice being disclosed if they need to meet the standards of Fox News advisors. None of that establishes involvement by the President. You are playing talk radio Dungeons and Dragons. Have fun with it but that doenst make it reality.


...and you're playing 'ignore the blatantly obvious', while still proclaiming to know something about reality.



simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075

22 Jun 2012, 4:25 pm

JWC wrote:
simon_says wrote:
You need to differentiate current deliberations about what to do about this versus knowing about it back in the day. Or that the deliberations that were "ultimately intended for the President" ever actually made it that far. "Ultimately intended" is a pretty loose standard. As is the time factor.

Quote:
"The reason is the president believes the documents in question are "not anything material to [the] Fast and Furious [investigation]." Instead these documents are "internal deliberations within the Justice Dept" about how the administration planned to respond to congressional investigators and media inquiries about Fast and Furious - not the actual Fast and Furious investigation itself, per the same senior administration official.

Read more: http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2012/ ... z1yYdN7sVd


That's the WH line. They can throw in something about security implications of the advice being disclosed if they need to meet the standards of Fox News advisors. None of that establishes involvement by the President. You are playing talk radio Dungeons and Dragons. Have fun with it but that doenst make it reality.


...and you're playing 'ignore the blatantly obvious', while still proclaiming to know something about reality.


I think I could spend several pages trying to explain to you how assumptions and facts are different things and you still wouldnt get it or pretend not to at least. Personally I think you know better and are just using insinuations to troll.



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

22 Jun 2012, 4:44 pm

Dox47 wrote:
marshall wrote:
You don't seem to notice that I resort to contemptuous argument style when it's been made clear that the person I'm arguing with is mentally incapable of reasoned debate. Sorry there's no nicer way to put it but I'm not blessed with extreme patience.


If you think they're incapable, why debate them at all? To put it more flippantly; how is that working out for you?


I'm quite certain people who's sole purpose is to rant and take pot-shots aren't interested in serious debate. I mean, look at how they responded to visigrunt even when he honestly tries. I'm not as much as a fool as him to waste my mental effort on people who only come on here to make partisan rants, pot shots, and otherwise clown around. I'm not holding anyone at fault if that's what they want to do, but I'm not going to waste my effort dissecting posts consisting of cheap slogans and pot-shots point by point. If I'm responding to someone else's rant with a rant of my own and I feel contempt for their particular viewpoint that's just that and it's going to come out. I'm not trying to manipulate people or pull the wool over anyone's eyes. I'm just expressing myself. I expect people to think for themselves and not take everything I say 100% literally. If you think it makes me look weak that's only one person's opinion. The truth of the matter is most people on this board are capable of serious discussion even if they enjoy ranting every once in a while. A lot of the right-wing partisans that happen upon here only seem to operate in one gear though, maybe because they feel outnumbered by a hostile left-leaning majority on here.



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

22 Jun 2012, 5:31 pm

Raptor wrote:
marshall wrote:
I only assume mental incapacity when there has yet to be any evidence to the contrary. It's possible you could prove me wrong some day, but for now I assume you're sole purpose here is to clown around taking potshots at the hordes of "sniveling liberals".

Could it be that you take yourself too seriously sometimes?

The fact that people like you vote kind of forces my hand. It's not about me though. I think people in this country could all start taking things a little more seriously.
Quote:
Could it be that you measure mental capacity by someones politics?

No. By the fact that someone is only interested in hanging out under bridges.
Quote:
Could it be that you sometimes purposely bait potshots?

Your mind-reading skills are sub-par. That you think someone is baiting you has no bearing on their actual intent to provoke you.
Quote:
Something to consider........

Whatever. :roll:



simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075

22 Jun 2012, 5:55 pm

marshall wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
marshall wrote:
You don't seem to notice that I resort to contemptuous argument style when it's been made clear that the person I'm arguing with is mentally incapable of reasoned debate. Sorry there's no nicer way to put it but I'm not blessed with extreme patience.


If you think they're incapable, why debate them at all? To put it more flippantly; how is that working out for you?


I'm quite certain people who's sole purpose is to rant and take pot-shots aren't interested in serious debate. I mean, look at how they responded to visigrunt even when he honestly tries. I'm not as much as a fool as him to waste my mental effort on people who only come on here to make partisan rants, pot shots, and otherwise clown around. I'm not holding anyone at fault if that's what they want to do, but I'm not going to waste my effort dissecting posts consisting of cheap slogans and pot-shots point by point. If I'm responding to someone else's rant with a rant of my own and I feel contempt for their particular viewpoint that's just that and it's going to come out. I'm not trying to manipulate people or pull the wool over anyone's eyes. I'm just expressing myself. I expect people to think for themselves and not take everything I say 100% literally. If you think it makes me look weak that's only one person's opinion. The truth of the matter is most people on this board are capable of serious discussion even if they enjoy ranting every once in a while. A lot of the right-wing partisans that happen upon here only seem to operate in one gear though, maybe because they feel outnumbered by a hostile left-leaning majority on here.


Exactly. When faced with deranged rants the only option is mockery. There is no basis for discussion.

When someone says "when did you stop beating your wife", denying it isnt the proper response. If you discuss it at all you've given the attacker a win because you are talking about what they want to talk about. A smear. You respond that you'll be happy to explain that in full once they explain why they scr*wed their mother's corpse in their driveway in broad daylight. There never was a discussion taking place so don't pretend there is one.



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

22 Jun 2012, 9:04 pm

marshall wrote:
Raptor wrote:
marshall wrote:
I only assume mental incapacity when there has yet to be any evidence to the contrary. It's possible you could prove me wrong some day, but for now I assume you're sole purpose here is to clown around taking potshots at the hordes of "sniveling liberals".

Could it be that you take yourself too seriously sometimes?

The fact that people like you vote kind of forces my hand. It's not about me though. I think people in this country could all start taking things a little more seriously.
Quote:
Could it be that you measure mental capacity by someones politics?

No. By the fact that someone is only interested in hanging out under bridges.
Quote:
Could it be that you sometimes purposely bait potshots?

Your mind-reading skills are sub-par. That you think someone is baiting you has no bearing on their actual intent to provoke you.
Quote:
Something to consider........

Whatever. :roll:


Quote:
The fact that people like you vote kind of forces my hand. It's not about me though. I think people in this country could all start taking things a little more seriously.

And I'll still be voting no matter what. Take it seriously on some liberal political website. You're not going to accomplish much in the way of anything on PPR as long as the opposition can respond to you with their own arguments. I don't know what your aim is on this forum is but you're not going to convert any conservative worth the time of day over to the left any more than I'm going to convert any liberals over. I don't try to and I don't even want to. Anyone that can be hornswoggled that easily from one side to the other can just as easily be hornswoggled back. People will change one way or the other for their own reasons if they change at all.

Quote:
No. By the fact that someone is only interested in hanging out under bridges.

Ah yes, the troll accusation. :D Someone doesn't agree with you so they're a troll. Or maybe you realize I'm right on some things but can't admit to it so you throw the troll thing up there.
We've got a real troll here if there ever was one but he's a liberal so I guess you don't notice. Selective blindness or silent consent?

Quote:
Your mind-reading skills are sub-par. That you think someone is baiting you has no bearing on their actual intent to provoke you.

I don't claim to be a mind reader but I've noticed you do seem to take any opportunity to take a shot a the right. You do it a lot more than I do it to the left and it is apparently just for the purpose of drawing fire.



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

22 Jun 2012, 11:05 pm

Raptor wrote:
Quote:
The fact that people like you vote kind of forces my hand. It's not about me though. I think people in this country could all start taking things a little more seriously.

And I'll still be voting no matter what. Take it seriously on some liberal political website. You're not going to accomplish much in the way of anything on PPR as long as the opposition can respond to you with their own arguments. I don't know what your aim is on this forum is but you're not going to convert any conservative worth the time of day over to the left any more than I'm going to convert any liberals over. I don't try to and I don't even want to. Anyone that can be hornswoggled that easily from one side to the other can just as easily be hornswoggled back. People will change one way or the other for their own reasons if they change at all.

I'm not interested in trying to "convert" die-hard conservative republicans. I'm just saying it's pretty hard not to take your group seriously when you guys vote.

Quote:
Quote:
No. By the fact that someone is only interested in hanging out under bridges.

Ah yes, the troll accusation. :D Someone doesn't agree with you so they're a troll. Or maybe you realize I'm right on some things but can't admit to it so you throw the troll thing up there.

No. I'm not talking about disagreement. I'm talking about your "debate" style. Heavy on sarcasm and pot-shots, low on substance. There are some right-wing partisans I'm not quite willing to apply the 'T' label to because unlike you they actually do put time and effort into their arguments every once in while. I'm glad Inuyasha is finally back.
Quote:
We've got a real troll here if there ever was one but he's a liberal so I guess you don't notice. Selective blindness or silent consent?

Well I've got to admit it's a lot more annoying when one is dead wrong on every issue in addition to acting like a troll. :P You already have Dox47 policing "the left" on it's "debate tactics" while completely ignoring you and a couple others. What more do you want?

Quote:
Quote:
Your mind-reading skills are sub-par. That you think someone is baiting you has no bearing on their actual intent to provoke you.

I don't claim to be a mind reader but I've noticed you do seem to take any opportunity to take a shot a the right. You do it a lot more than I do it to the left and it is apparently just for the purpose of drawing fire.

You've got to remember I'm on the autism spectrum. I don't have the natural inclination to deliberately manipulate people. When I do snap and say something un-nice about your political tribe, it's simply me reacting to the particular combination of :doh:, :eew:, and :wall: appearing regularly under the name of one of your comrades. It would actually save me a lot of pain if I didn't "draw fire" and could chew you guys out in peace. It'd simply be some enjoyable mental catharsis if my punching bag had a faceless generic repugnican label on it but alas people like you have to dart in front and take the hit for the home team.



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,577
Location: Seattle-ish

22 Jun 2012, 11:17 pm

marshall wrote:
You already have Dox47 policing "the left" on it's "debate tactics" while completely ignoring you and a couple others.


*ahem*

The entire rest of the forum (more or less) "polices" the handful of right wing members we have here; I prefer to point out the things that 15 other member haven't already harped on.


_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson


marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

23 Jun 2012, 12:12 am

Dox47 wrote:
marshall wrote:
You already have Dox47 policing "the left" on it's "debate tactics" while completely ignoring you and a couple others.


*ahem*

The entire rest of the forum (more or less) "polices" the handful of right wing members we have here; I prefer to point out the things that 15 other member haven't already harped on.


I don't see any "policing" going on at all. I just see mutual derision flowing back and forth from both sides. You're the only one acting as self-appointed forum nanny who only criticizes the "tactics" of people with whom you just so happen to disagree with and not get along with.

If you're trying to go for balance you don't really come across well. You're quick to give off-topic insulting lectures to others but get irritable if I say anything even remotely critical of you. Now I can predict you're going to get all nasty with me accusing me of making a false comparison. It's somehow different for you and I'm using some twisted logic right? You just know you're right but can't be bothered to explain it to me? Well, that's not good enough. Give me real logic. Not hollow claims of superiority. I just can't have a respectful discourse with you when it feels like walking on egg-shells. I also know I'm not alone in feeling this way about you.



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

23 Jun 2012, 2:13 pm

marshall wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
marshall wrote:
You already have Dox47 policing "the left" on it's "debate tactics" while completely ignoring you and a couple others.


*ahem*

The entire rest of the forum (more or less) "polices" the handful of right wing members we have here; I prefer to point out the things that 15 other member haven't already harped on.


I don't see any "policing" going on at all. I just see mutual derision flowing back and forth from both sides. You're the only one acting as self-appointed forum nanny who only criticizes the "tactics" of people with whom you just so happen to disagree with and not get along with.

If you're trying to go for balance you don't really come across well. You're quick to give off-topic insulting lectures to others but get irritable if I say anything even remotely critical of you. Now I can predict you're going to get all nasty with me accusing me of making a false comparison. It's somehow different for you and I'm using some twisted logic right? You just know you're right but can't be bothered to explain it to me? Well, that's not good enough. Give me real logic. Not hollow claims of superiority. I just can't have a respectful discourse with you when it feels like walking on egg-shells. I also know I'm not alone in feeling this way about you.


I don't think the family of the slain border patrol agents would share your opinion. Quite frankly I don't particularly care about the political implications, those families deserve answers not the partisan B.S. that you're spewing.