WrongPlanet.net
WP Members: > 80,000



Aspie Affection

New Today: 6
New Yesterday: 26

Eric Holder gets burned by Texas senator. Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 9, 10, 11, 12  Next  
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Wrong Planet Autism Forum Index -> Politics, Philosophy, and Religion     
Raptor
Phoenix
Phoenix


Joined: Mar 09, 2007
Posts: 8543
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2012 9:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

marshall wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Next time spare yourself all the typing and just say "F*ck you, your politics, and your country!".

Sounds like a good idea, minus one thing. This isn't your country. It's everyone else's too, including us "sniveling liberals" who would rather not have your kind giving all Americans a bad name. According to the polls, extreme right-wing partisans like yourself comprise less than 30% of the population. You guys don't single handedly own the title of "patriot".


Quote:
This isn't your country. It's everyone else's too, including us "sniveling liberals.......
.
Pretty weak even for you. People do refer to their nation of citizenship as "my country". Same applies to my state, my city, my neighborhood, my street, etc. That evil Raptor did not invent that all by his horrible raptoresque self.
Rolling Eyes

Quote:
.......who would rather not have your kind giving all Americans a bad name.

It might come as a surprise to you but my kind sees your kind as what's giving Americans a bad name.

Quote:
According to the polls, extreme right-wing partisans like yourself comprise less than 30% of the population.

Thank you very much for the complement but I'm afraid I'm by no means an extreme right wing partisan. I personally know some that are and compared to them I'm the sniveling liberal. Given a choice, though, I'd much rather be an extreme right wing partisan any day than an extreme left wing partisan. That poll was probably done by leftist partisans, anyway.

Quote:
You guys don't single handedly own the title of "patriot".

Maybe not but I'd say as a whole the right wing has done more to deserve the title of patriot and are actively doing more to preserve that title than any of you......
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ArrantPariah
Phoenix
Phoenix


Joined: Mar 31, 2012
Posts: 8800

PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2012 9:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Raptor wrote:
Quote:
According to the polls, extreme right-wing partisans like yourself comprise less than 30% of the population.

Thank you very much for the complement


Hey! If you're going to steal someone's catch-phrase, at least spell all of the words correctly!

Shame On You
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dox47
Matador
Phoenix


Joined: Jan 29, 2008
Posts: 7345
Location: Seattle Area

PostPosted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 12:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

marshall wrote:
I'll admit to my own condescension and intolerance. I don't believe in entering a gun fight with a knife or always turning the other cheek.


I meant to reply to this earlier, as it echoes a longstanding argument I've had with Master_Pedant specifically and quite a number of people generally over effective vs ineffective arguing techniques. See, when I see an angry, hyperbolic, profanity and personal attack laden post, my automatic response is to write that person and their opinion off, as clearly they are not in control of their self and/or trying to emotionally manipulate the argument. Think of the difference between reading a professional news article and a tabloid piece; the tone is completely different, and one conveys trust and competence while the other inflames the emotions and feels tawdry and cheap.

I don't think eschewing emotional and overly aggressive argumentation is disarming yourself, rather I think it's more like not using hand grenades at close range. Rage, contempt, condescension, all these things have a way of harming the person using them as much if not more so than the target of them, so I think the person who makes the conscience decision to avoid those things as much as possible is not weaker for it, but stronger.

I try and hold myself to a code of arguing, with varying degrees of success, that avoids overly emotional, hyperbolic, contemptuous or generalizing statements, and I think I do pretty well here for it. It even works well in that when I do inject a bit of emotion into my posts it has much greater impact, as I haven't degraded my "brand" so to speak with frequent petulant outbursts and angry tirades. I'm also much harder to dismiss as a partisan as I don't engage in sweeping tirades and mass generalizations, things that have a tendency to erode both your credibility and impartiality. In my case, I don't aim to be taken as impartial, as I don't think that's possible, but less partial than the people I'm arguing with. Nifty trick, and experience has shown that it drives people much crazier than a brazen personal insult... Laughing
_________________
“The kind of man who demands that government enforce his ideas is always the kind whose ideas are idiotic.”

H.L. Mencken
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
marshall
Under the whirlwind
Phoenix


Joined: Apr 15, 2007
Posts: 9816
Location: Western Washington

PostPosted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 1:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dox47 wrote:
marshall wrote:
I'll admit to my own condescension and intolerance. I don't believe in entering a gun fight with a knife or always turning the other cheek.


I meant to reply to this earlier, as it echoes a longstanding argument I've had with Master_Pedant specifically and quite a number of people generally over effective vs ineffective arguing techniques. See, when I see an angry, hyperbolic, profanity and personal attack laden post, my automatic response is to write that person and their opinion off, as clearly they are not in control of their self and/or trying to emotionally manipulate the argument. Think of the difference between reading a professional news article and a tabloid piece; the tone is completely different, and one conveys trust and competence while the other inflames the emotions and feels tawdry and cheap.

I don't think eschewing emotional and overly aggressive argumentation is disarming yourself, rather I think it's more like not using hand grenades at close range. Rage, contempt, condescension, all these things have a way of harming the person using them as much if not more so than the target of them, so I think the person who makes the conscience decision to avoid those things as much as possible is not weaker for it, but stronger.

I try and hold myself to a code of arguing, with varying degrees of success, that avoids overly emotional, hyperbolic, contemptuous or generalizing statements, and I think I do pretty well here for it. It even works well in that when I do inject a bit of emotion into my posts it has much greater impact, as I haven't degraded my "brand" so to speak with frequent petulant outbursts and angry tirades. I'm also much harder to dismiss as a partisan as I don't engage in sweeping tirades and mass generalizations, things that have a tendency to erode both your credibility and impartiality. In my case, I don't aim to be taken as impartial, as I don't think that's possible, but less partial than the people I'm arguing with. Nifty trick, and experience has shown that it drives people much crazier than a brazen personal insult... Laughing


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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Raptor
Phoenix
Phoenix


Joined: Mar 09, 2007
Posts: 8543
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

PostPosted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 1:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

marshall wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
marshall wrote:
I'll admit to my own condescension and intolerance. I don't believe in entering a gun fight with a knife or always turning the other cheek.


I meant to reply to this earlier, as it echoes a longstanding argument I've had with Master_Pedant specifically and quite a number of people generally over effective vs ineffective arguing techniques. See, when I see an angry, hyperbolic, profanity and personal attack laden post, my automatic response is to write that person and their opinion off, as clearly they are not in control of their self and/or trying to emotionally manipulate the argument. Think of the difference between reading a professional news article and a tabloid piece; the tone is completely different, and one conveys trust and competence while the other inflames the emotions and feels tawdry and cheap.

I don't think eschewing emotional and overly aggressive argumentation is disarming yourself, rather I think it's more like not using hand grenades at close range. Rage, contempt, condescension, all these things have a way of harming the person using them as much if not more so than the target of them, so I think the person who makes the conscience decision to avoid those things as much as possible is not weaker for it, but stronger.

I try and hold myself to a code of arguing, with varying degrees of success, that avoids overly emotional, hyperbolic, contemptuous or generalizing statements, and I think I do pretty well here for it. It even works well in that when I do inject a bit of emotion into my posts it has much greater impact, as I haven't degraded my "brand" so to speak with frequent petulant outbursts and angry tirades. I'm also much harder to dismiss as a partisan as I don't engage in sweeping tirades and mass generalizations, things that have a tendency to erode both your credibility and impartiality. In my case, I don't aim to be taken as impartial, as I don't think that's possible, but less partial than the people I'm arguing with. Nifty trick, and experience has shown that it drives people much crazier than a brazen personal insult... Laughing


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.


i.e. when they have a differing opinion.......
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marshall
Under the whirlwind
Phoenix


Joined: Apr 15, 2007
Posts: 9816
Location: Western Washington

PostPosted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 1:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Raptor wrote:
visigrunt wrote:
]As for the second matter, I would never claim that my country's government or constitution is perfect. Far from it. Indeed, I think we have committed exactly the opposite constitutional offence in this country, having gone too far to other extreme and having taken far too much authority away from individual legislators. Since I am employed as a public servant I see the nature of decision making in my government every day, and I participate in it. I recognize its shortcomings and its strengths. But most importantly, I recognize that the work that I do, that my department does and my Minister's accountability for it to Parliament is important. Do we make mistakes? Of course we do--a government is, after all, a human thing. But to suggest that government is always wrong, or mostly bad is, I suggest, to throw the baby out with the bathwater.


My point is, once again, to limit, I'll spell it out for you L-I-M-I-T, government control. The less you do the less you chance screwing up and governments are notoriously clumsy. As stated before in this thread I get to experience federal government inefficiency every day from a government contractor standpoint.

wall wall wall


Here's a nice example of a right-winger being reasonable and not letting his emotions control him.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marshall
Under the whirlwind
Phoenix


Joined: Apr 15, 2007
Posts: 9816
Location: Western Washington

PostPosted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 1:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Raptor wrote:
marshall wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
marshall wrote:
I'll admit to my own condescension and intolerance. I don't believe in entering a gun fight with a knife or always turning the other cheek.


I meant to reply to this earlier, as it echoes a longstanding argument I've had with Master_Pedant specifically and quite a number of people generally over effective vs ineffective arguing techniques. See, when I see an angry, hyperbolic, profanity and personal attack laden post, my automatic response is to write that person and their opinion off, as clearly they are not in control of their self and/or trying to emotionally manipulate the argument. Think of the difference between reading a professional news article and a tabloid piece; the tone is completely different, and one conveys trust and competence while the other inflames the emotions and feels tawdry and cheap.

I don't think eschewing emotional and overly aggressive argumentation is disarming yourself, rather I think it's more like not using hand grenades at close range. Rage, contempt, condescension, all these things have a way of harming the person using them as much if not more so than the target of them, so I think the person who makes the conscience decision to avoid those things as much as possible is not weaker for it, but stronger.

I try and hold myself to a code of arguing, with varying degrees of success, that avoids overly emotional, hyperbolic, contemptuous or generalizing statements, and I think I do pretty well here for it. It even works well in that when I do inject a bit of emotion into my posts it has much greater impact, as I haven't degraded my "brand" so to speak with frequent petulant outbursts and angry tirades. I'm also much harder to dismiss as a partisan as I don't engage in sweeping tirades and mass generalizations, things that have a tendency to erode both your credibility and impartiality. In my case, I don't aim to be taken as impartial, as I don't think that's possible, but less partial than the people I'm arguing with. Nifty trick, and experience has shown that it drives people much crazier than a brazen personal insult... Laughing


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.


i.e. when they have a differing opinion.......


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".
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Raptor
Phoenix
Phoenix


Joined: Mar 09, 2007
Posts: 8543
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

PostPosted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 2:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

marshall wrote:
Raptor wrote:
visigrunt wrote:
]As for the second matter, I would never claim that my country's government or constitution is perfect. Far from it. Indeed, I think we have committed exactly the opposite constitutional offence in this country, having gone too far to other extreme and having taken far too much authority away from individual legislators. Since I am employed as a public servant I see the nature of decision making in my government every day, and I participate in it. I recognize its shortcomings and its strengths. But most importantly, I recognize that the work that I do, that my department does and my Minister's accountability for it to Parliament is important. Do we make mistakes? Of course we do--a government is, after all, a human thing. But to suggest that government is always wrong, or mostly bad is, I suggest, to throw the baby out with the bathwater.


My point is, once again, to limit, I'll spell it out for you L-I-M-I-T, government control. The less you do the less you chance screwing up and governments are notoriously clumsy. As stated before in this thread I get to experience federal government inefficiency every day from a government contractor standpoint.

wall wall wall


Here's a nice example of a right-winger being reasonable and not letting his emotions control him.


You call that emotional? Even if it is it's nothing compared to some of your rants...
Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Raptor
Phoenix
Phoenix


Joined: Mar 09, 2007
Posts: 8543
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

PostPosted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 2:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

marshall wrote:
Raptor wrote:
marshall wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
marshall wrote:
I'll admit to my own condescension and intolerance. I don't believe in entering a gun fight with a knife or always turning the other cheek.


I meant to reply to this earlier, as it echoes a longstanding argument I've had with Master_Pedant specifically and quite a number of people generally over effective vs ineffective arguing techniques. See, when I see an angry, hyperbolic, profanity and personal attack laden post, my automatic response is to write that person and their opinion off, as clearly they are not in control of their self and/or trying to emotionally manipulate the argument. Think of the difference between reading a professional news article and a tabloid piece; the tone is completely different, and one conveys trust and competence while the other inflames the emotions and feels tawdry and cheap.

I don't think eschewing emotional and overly aggressive argumentation is disarming yourself, rather I think it's more like not using hand grenades at close range. Rage, contempt, condescension, all these things have a way of harming the person using them as much if not more so than the target of them, so I think the person who makes the conscience decision to avoid those things as much as possible is not weaker for it, but stronger.

I try and hold myself to a code of arguing, with varying degrees of success, that avoids overly emotional, hyperbolic, contemptuous or generalizing statements, and I think I do pretty well here for it. It even works well in that when I do inject a bit of emotion into my posts it has much greater impact, as I haven't degraded my "brand" so to speak with frequent petulant outbursts and angry tirades. I'm also much harder to dismiss as a partisan as I don't engage in sweeping tirades and mass generalizations, things that have a tendency to erode both your credibility and impartiality. In my case, I don't aim to be taken as impartial, as I don't think that's possible, but less partial than the people I'm arguing with. Nifty trick, and experience has shown that it drives people much crazier than a brazen personal insult... Laughing


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.


i.e. when they have a differing opinion.......


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?
Could it be that you measure mental capacity by someones politics?
Could it be that you sometimes purposely bait potshots?
Something to consider........
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
simon_says
Phoenix
Phoenix


Joined: Jan 21, 2011
Posts: 3200

PostPosted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 3:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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. Laughing 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. Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dox47
Matador
Phoenix


Joined: Jan 29, 2008
Posts: 7345
Location: Seattle Area

PostPosted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 4:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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 kind of man who demands that government enforce his ideas is always the kind whose ideas are idiotic.”

H.L. Mencken
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
JWC
Phoenix
Phoenix


Joined: Mar 01, 2011
Posts: 740
Location: Macondo Wellhead

PostPosted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 4:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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. Laughing 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. Laughing


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/2012/06/20/president-obama-attorney-general-holder-and-executive-privilege/#ixzz1yYXFkRI3
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
simon_says
Phoenix
Phoenix


Joined: Jan 21, 2011
Posts: 3200

PostPosted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 4:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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. Laughing 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. Laughing


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/2012/06/20/president-obama-attorney-general-holder-and-executive-privilege/#ixzz1yYXFkRI3



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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
JWC
Phoenix
Phoenix


Joined: Mar 01, 2011
Posts: 740
Location: Macondo Wellhead

PostPosted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 4:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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. Laughing 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. Laughing


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/2012/06/20/president-obama-attorney-general-holder-and-executive-privilege/#ixzz1yYXFkRI3



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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
simon_says
Phoenix
Phoenix


Joined: Jan 21, 2011
Posts: 3200

PostPosted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 4:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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/2012/06/20/white-house-reaction-fast-and-furious-executive-privilege#ixzz1yYdN7sVd


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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Wrong Planet Autism Forum Index -> Politics, Philosophy, and Religion   
Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 9, 10, 11, 12  Next  

 
Read more Articles on Wrong Planet



Wrong Planet is a Registered Trademark.
Copyright 2004-2014, Wrong Planet, LLC and Alex Plank. Alex does public speaking for Autism.

Advertise on Wrong Planet

Alex Hotchalk / Glam 

Alex Plank  Aspie Affection 

Terms of Service - You must read this as a user of Wrong Planet | Privacy Policy

Subscribe: RSS Feed  Wrong Planet News  Wrong Planet Forums




fine art