HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
Bon Vivant said:
HarveyCanal said:
Thymebomb13 said:
And I can't believe anyone with an IQ over 65 thinks Fast and Furious is a major issue in this election. I know wingnuts have popped hernias over this low-level snafu but it has no legs as a national issue.
Hardly anything pertinent is an issue in this "election".
So yeah, I guess it is no sweat for Obama to sweep stacks of dismembered bodies just across our border under the rug.
Oh, is that what he did? Stacks of them, huh?
I would post photos if they weren't so brutally offensive.
And I can't believe anyone with an IQ over 65 thinks Fast and Furious is a major issue in this election. I know wingnuts have popped hernias over this low-level snafu but it has no legs as a national issue.
Hardly anything pertinent is an issue in this "election".
So yeah, I guess it is no sweat for Obama to sweep stacks of dismembered bodies just across our border under the rug.
Oh, is that what he did? Stacks of them, huh?
I would post photos if they weren't so brutally offensive.
And I can't believe anyone with an IQ over 65 thinks Fast and Furious is a major issue in this election. I know wingnuts have popped hernias over this low-level snafu but it has no legs as a national issue.
Hardly anything pertinent is an issue in this "election".
So yeah, I guess it is no sweat for Obama to sweep stacks of dismembered bodies just across our border under the rug.
Oh, is that what he did? Stacks of them, huh?
I would post photos if they weren't so brutally offensive.
And Obama swept them under the rug?!?!?!
He's being nice...if was Bush he would have cooked and ate them.
He's being nice...if was Bush he would have cooked and ate them.
In Crawford, I bet.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
If Obama actually pulled the triggers himself, you would find away to ignore it away. So there's no point in conversing with you on this...or anything for that matter. But what else is new?
If Obama actually pulled the triggers himself, you would find away to ignore it away. So there's no point in conversing with you on this...or anything for that matter. But what else is new?
But, he didn't pull the trigger. He didn't even order FF. He didn't "sweep stacks of dismembered bodies unde the rug across the border". But, you don't want to converse. You want to throw rhetorical bombs (that are false) and then pick up your ball and walk away when called on them.
If Obama actually pulled the triggers himself, you would find away to ignore it away. So there's no point in conversing with you on this...or anything for that matter. But what else is new?
But, he didn't pull the trigger. He didn't even order FF. He didn't "sweep stacks of dismembered bodies unde the rug across the border". But, you don't want to converse. You want to throw rhetorical bombs (that are false) and then pick up your ball and walk away when called on them.
But what else is new?
Who, in your opinion, should get the blame for F&F....specifically.
If Obama actually pulled the triggers himself, you would find away to ignore it away. So there's no point in conversing with you on this...or anything for that matter. But what else is new?
But, he didn't pull the trigger. He didn't even order FF. He didn't "sweep stacks of dismembered bodies unde the rug across the border". But, you don't want to converse. You want to throw rhetorical bombs (that are false) and then pick up your ball and walk away when called on them.
But what else is new?
Who, in your opinion, should get the blame for F&F....specifically.
Ken Melson, Jason Weinstein, Gary Grindler, Lanny Breuer, Dennis Burke, and Monty Wilkinson.
There's no evidence that Holder or Obama knew about FF before the shit went bad, so to blame them is unfair, in my view. To cast the President as complicit in murder as Harvey seems to do, is outrageous.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
Oh, you know all that about the case, but just 20 minutes ago you were questioning that there have indeed been stacks of bodies.
If Obama actually pulled the triggers himself, you would find away to ignore it away. So there's no point in conversing with you on this...or anything for that matter. But what else is new?
But, he didn't pull the trigger. He didn't even order FF. He didn't "sweep stacks of dismembered bodies unde the rug across the border". But, you don't want to converse. You want to throw rhetorical bombs (that are false) and then pick up your ball and walk away when called on them.
But what else is new?
Who, in your opinion, should get the blame for F&F....specifically.
Ken Melson, Jason Weinstein, Gary Grindler, Lanny Breuer, Dennis Burke, and Monty Wilkinson.
There's no evidence that Holder or Obama knew about FF before the shit went bad, so to blame them is unfair, in my view. To cast the President as complicit in murder as Harvey seems to do, is outrageous.
No Bill Hoover or David Voth......Holder completely innocent of any wrongdoing?
Is that what you have come to? Forgetting that you were claiming that Obama swept stacks of bodies under the rug? And me saying that is 100% untrue.
It's like you work for the Romney campaign. Selective editing doesn't work. Be honest.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
If you don't think that Obama had any influence over an internal investigation of his Justice Department where his own appointee was at risk of facing disciplinary action, then...wait, whatever...I'm just glad you only get one vote per election.
If Obama actually pulled the triggers himself, you would find away to ignore it away. So there's no point in conversing with you on this...or anything for that matter. But what else is new?
But, he didn't pull the trigger. He didn't even order FF. He didn't "sweep stacks of dismembered bodies unde the rug across the border". But, you don't want to converse. You want to throw rhetorical bombs (that are false) and then pick up your ball and walk away when called on them.
But what else is new?
Who, in your opinion, should get the blame for F&F....specifically.
Ken Melson, Jason Weinstein, Gary Grindler, Lanny Breuer, Dennis Burke, and Monty Wilkinson.
There's no evidence that Holder or Obama knew about FF before the shit went bad, so to blame them is unfair, in my view. To cast the President as complicit in murder as Harvey seems to do, is outrageous.
No Bill Hoover or David Voth......Holder completely innocent of any wrongdoing?
Well, if Holder didn't know about it, and the reason he didn't know about it is because the people who were supposed to tell him didn't, then why would he not be innocent of wrongdoing? The AG is not gifted with ESP. Maybe, I'll give him some blame for trusting people he (in hindsight) shouldn't have.
As to the other two guys, are you criticizing me for not listing every single person involved? Really? I think the 6 I listed suffices to answer your question. I trust the report that was just released.
If you don't think that Obama had any influence over an internal investigation of his Justice Department where his own appointee was at risk of facing disciplinary action, then...wait, whatever...I'm just glad you only get one vote per election.
Unless you have evidence that he did, you're just spouting more of your typical paranoid delusions. I wish you couldn't vote at all.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
Yeah, I've got the evidence in my pocket. Because that's how it works. Random dudes from the internet are holding evidence on headline cases like that.
Yeah, I've got the evidence in my pocket. Because that's how it works. Random dudes from the internet are holding evidence on headline cases like that.
Here's how it doesn't work: People make baseless claims that are not supported by any evidence, which are to be taken at face value.
Do I think Obama had influence over the FF internal DOJ investigation? No. Here's why, #1 that's a crime, and Obama doesn't strike me as a criminal. Certainly not one that would attempt to impede, obstruct, or unduly influence a federal investigation. Now, I know you don't agree, so don't bother stating it. #2, there's no evidence to suggest he did.
Obama doesn't strike me as a criminal. Certainly not one that would attempt to impede, obstruct, or unduly influence a federal investigation. Now, I know you don't agree, so don't bother stating it. #2, there's no evidence to suggest he did.
^^^^
Conveniently ignores the fact that the White House and Justice Department withheld most of the evidence that was sought in the investigation.
[Jesse Ventura] made one point that is 100% true and can not be ignored. When he ran for Governor of Minnesota he was polled at 10% of the vote 2 -3 months before the election.....he was allowed to debate the D & R candidate and eventually won.
Both the Dems and Reps talk about giving people opportunities as long as it isn't the opportunity for a third party to get an even playing field.....as soon as Ventura won BOTH of these parties raced to 'recruit" him....the thing that scares them the most is a third party and an independent thinker.......and if it's bad for them politically, it's gotta be good for us peons.
I can't see defending a two party system in 2012.
Rock I agree with you that more voices would be good for democracy in this country.
Unfortunately, because of our electoral infrastructure 3rd parties start with sever (if almost insurmountable) limitations. We have on one had a winner takes all congressional system and while the electoral college protects rural voters from being overwhelmed by their more numerous urban brethren it also chokes the ability of third party candidates from being viable except as spoilers (i.e. Ross Perot for Bush the Elder and Nader for Gore).
It would take a structural change on how congressional power is apportioned and presidential elections are won for a 3rd party to become viable outside of a state or regional level. By the time a 3rd party becomes a threat it either pushes out a dying party (e.g. Whigs being replaced by Republicans) or gets subsumed into an existing party (i.e. practically any other 3rd party).
"Independents" are in a bind under the current system. You guys get to decide the election but don't have much of a voice on who the choices are. Democrats and Republicans set the table and you have to choose which plate to eat from or not at all.
You choice are:
A) Throw up your hands and wait for the independent messiah to come and deliver you from the political darkness (not likely).
B) Play the edges as you are now and watch as both parties field folks you are not thrilled about (hold your nose and vote).
C) Band together with like-minded independents and try to take over a party (this is what Ron Paul is doing with libertarians in the republican party).
D) Like option A, you wait for an independent messiah, but prepare the way with like-minded independents by starting on a local or state level and try to grow your party to a regional basis.
Beyond that, your choices are limited.
BTW, still waiting for your reasons you believe that in-person voter fraud is a real and present danger to our political system and why its worth the cost of implementing and suppressing the vote.
Unfortunately, because of our electoral infrastructure 3rd parties start with sever (if almost insurmountable) limitations.
Yeah, they're called the Democrats and Republicans.
Saracenus said:
BTW, still waiting for your reasons you believe that in-person voter fraud is a real and present danger to our political system and why its worth the cost of implementing and suppressing the vote.
.
You apparently didn't see this
[How about everyone is sent a voter card and when they show up to vote, they hand in their card (Which then gets stamped voted) and show one piece of a document that proves they live there?
.
I'd be cool with this.....and it's not like I am a big advocate for Voter ID....but if we have a problem with voter suppression and voter fraud it seems like there should be a solution that would address them both in one fell swoop.
I don't think the anti-voter suppression folks I've heard speak would buy into your solution above because it would discriminate against the homeless.
Obama doesn't strike me as a criminal. Certainly not one that would attempt to impede, obstruct, or unduly influence a federal investigation. Now, I know you don't agree, so don't bother stating it. #2, there's no evidence to suggest he did.
^^^^
Conveniently ignores the fact that the White House and Justice Department withheld most of the evidence that was sought in the investigation.
The WH and DOJ gave 7600 pages of documentation and attended 11 Congressional hearings over a 14 month period. That's a lot. Executive Priviledge is legitmate where it is invoked to protect internal deliberations, at least so says the Supreme Court. There are 3 co-equal branches of government, with neither being subordinate to the other. Some information was withheld under EP, but to characterize that as "most of the evidence", given the amount already disclosed, is incorrect, in my opinion.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
Bot Vivant.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
Again, I could post photos.
And shoot, I live about 3 or so hours from where all those drug wars have been taking place.
Here's what it sounded like in Piedras Negras just yesterday...
"On June 7 Attorney General Eric Holder told the U.S. House of Representatives??? Judiciary Committee: ???We???ve looked at 240 custodians, processed millions of electronic records and reviewed over 140,000 documents and produced to you about 7,600.???
Yes, my grasps of facts are robotic in there accuracy.
Grammar is not a robotic skill of mine 100% of the time. Living in reality isn't a skill of yours 90% of the time. I'll take my flaw over yours any day of the week.
Thanks.
edit--it should also say grasp, not grasps. See how I can own up to my mistakes?
"On June 7 Attorney General Eric Holder told the U.S. House of Representatives??? Judiciary Committee: ???We???ve looked at 240 custodians, processed millions of electronic records and reviewed over 140,000 documents and produced to you about 7,600.???
I think I know where you're going with this, but I have to ask, are you familiar with the rules of discovery?
Comments
I would post photos if they weren't so brutally offensive.
And Obama swept them under the rug?!?!?!
He's being nice...if was Bush he would have cooked and ate them.
In Crawford, I bet.
But, he didn't pull the trigger. He didn't even order FF. He didn't "sweep stacks of dismembered bodies unde the rug across the border". But, you don't want to converse. You want to throw rhetorical bombs (that are false) and then pick up your ball and walk away when called on them.
But what else is new?
Who, in your opinion, should get the blame for F&F....specifically.
Ken Melson, Jason Weinstein, Gary Grindler, Lanny Breuer, Dennis Burke, and Monty Wilkinson.
There's no evidence that Holder or Obama knew about FF before the shit went bad, so to blame them is unfair, in my view. To cast the President as complicit in murder as Harvey seems to do, is outrageous.
Please.
Oh, are we conversing now?
Sorry, Harvey. That's not what I said. Check the record.
No Bill Hoover or David Voth......Holder completely innocent of any wrongdoing?
Is that what you have come to? Forgetting that you were claiming that Obama swept stacks of bodies under the rug? And me saying that is 100% untrue.
It's like you work for the Romney campaign. Selective editing doesn't work. Be honest.
Well, if Holder didn't know about it, and the reason he didn't know about it is because the people who were supposed to tell him didn't, then why would he not be innocent of wrongdoing? The AG is not gifted with ESP. Maybe, I'll give him some blame for trusting people he (in hindsight) shouldn't have.
As to the other two guys, are you criticizing me for not listing every single person involved? Really? I think the 6 I listed suffices to answer your question. I trust the report that was just released.
Unless you have evidence that he did, you're just spouting more of your typical paranoid delusions. I wish you couldn't vote at all.
Here's how it doesn't work: People make baseless claims that are not supported by any evidence, which are to be taken at face value.
Do I think Obama had influence over the FF internal DOJ investigation? No. Here's why, #1 that's a crime, and Obama doesn't strike me as a criminal. Certainly not one that would attempt to impede, obstruct, or unduly influence a federal investigation. Now, I know you don't agree, so don't bother stating it. #2, there's no evidence to suggest he did.
^^^^
Conveniently ignores the fact that the White House and Justice Department withheld most of the evidence that was sought in the investigation.
Rock I agree with you that more voices would be good for democracy in this country.
Unfortunately, because of our electoral infrastructure 3rd parties start with sever (if almost insurmountable) limitations. We have on one had a winner takes all congressional system and while the electoral college protects rural voters from being overwhelmed by their more numerous urban brethren it also chokes the ability of third party candidates from being viable except as spoilers (i.e. Ross Perot for Bush the Elder and Nader for Gore).
It would take a structural change on how congressional power is apportioned and presidential elections are won for a 3rd party to become viable outside of a state or regional level. By the time a 3rd party becomes a threat it either pushes out a dying party (e.g. Whigs being replaced by Republicans) or gets subsumed into an existing party (i.e. practically any other 3rd party).
"Independents" are in a bind under the current system. You guys get to decide the election but don't have much of a voice on who the choices are. Democrats and Republicans set the table and you have to choose which plate to eat from or not at all.
You choice are:
A) Throw up your hands and wait for the independent messiah to come and deliver you from the political darkness (not likely).
B) Play the edges as you are now and watch as both parties field folks you are not thrilled about (hold your nose and vote).
C) Band together with like-minded independents and try to take over a party (this is what Ron Paul is doing with libertarians in the republican party).
D) Like option A, you wait for an independent messiah, but prepare the way with like-minded independents by starting on a local or state level and try to grow your party to a regional basis.
Beyond that, your choices are limited.
BTW, still waiting for your reasons you believe that in-person voter fraud is a real and present danger to our political system and why its worth the cost of implementing and suppressing the vote.
My two cents.
Yeah, they're called the Democrats and Republicans.
You apparently didn't see this
The WH and DOJ gave 7600 pages of documentation and attended 11 Congressional hearings over a 14 month period. That's a lot. Executive Priviledge is legitmate where it is invoked to protect internal deliberations, at least so says the Supreme Court. There are 3 co-equal branches of government, with neither being subordinate to the other. Some information was withheld under EP, but to characterize that as "most of the evidence", given the amount already disclosed, is incorrect, in my opinion.
And shoot, I live about 3 or so hours from where all those drug wars have been taking place.
Here's what it sounded like in Piedras Negras just yesterday...
Lots of people care.
This is 100% accurate.
"On June 7 Attorney General Eric Holder told the U.S. House of Representatives??? Judiciary Committee: ???We???ve looked at 240 custodians, processed millions of electronic records and reviewed over 140,000 documents and produced to you about 7,600.???
^^^^Consistantly raises the level of discourse to the highest level^^^^^
Yes, my grasps of facts are robotic in there accuracy.
Grammar is not a robotic skill of mine 100% of the time. Living in reality isn't a skill of yours 90% of the time. I'll take my flaw over yours any day of the week.
Thanks.
edit--it should also say grasp, not grasps. See how I can own up to my mistakes?
I think I know where you're going with this, but I have to ask, are you familiar with the rules of discovery?