Help Me Understand Why Yall Think The Government Is Wanting To Do TO Yall???

Status
Not open for further replies.
Treasure_Hunter said:
Google search for "Fox News Fast and Furious 2013" ...

Attorney General Eric Holder Begs Court To Not Release Fast And Furious Documents..
Attorney General Eric Holder and his Department of Justice have asked a federal court to indefinitely delay a lawsuit brought by watchdog group Judicial Watch. The lawsuit seeks the enforcement of open records requests relating to Operation Fast and Furious, as required by law.Judicial Watch had filed, on June 22, 2012, a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request seeking all documents relating to Operation Fast and Furious and "specifically [a]ll records subject to the claim of executive privilege invoked by President Barack Obama on or about June 20, 2012."

The administration has refused to comply with Judicial Watch’s FOIA request, and in mid-September the group filed a lawsuit challenging Holder’s denial. That lawsuit remains ongoing but within the past week President Barack Obama’s administration filed what’s called a "motion to stay" the suit. Such a motion is something that if granted would delay the lawsuit indefinitely.

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said that Holder’s and Obama’s desire to continually hide these Fast and Furious documents is "ironic" now that they’re so gung-ho on gun control. "It is beyond ironic that the Obama administration has initiated an anti-gun violence push as it seeking to keep secret key documents about its very own Fast and Furious gun walking scandal," Fitton said in a statement. "Getting beyond the Obama administration’s smokescreen, this lawsuit is about a very simple principle: the public’s right to know the full truth about an egregious political scandal that led to the death of at least one American and countless others in Mexico. The American people are sick and tired of the Obama administration trying to rewrite FOIA law to protect this president and his appointees. Americans want answers about Fast and Furious killings and lies."

The only justification Holder uses to ask the court to indefinitely delay Judicial Watch’s suit is that there’s another lawsuit ongoing for the same documents – one filed by the U.S. House of Representatives. Judicial Watch has filed a brief opposing the DOJ’s motion to stay.

As the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform was voting Holder into contempt of Congress for his refusal to cooperate with congressional investigators by failing to turn over tens of thousands of pages of Fast and Furious documents, Obama asserted the executive privilege over them. The full House of Representatives soon after voted on a bipartisan basis to hold Holder in contempt.

There were two parts of the contempt resolution. Holder was, and still is, in both civil and still is, in both civil and criminal contempt of Congress. The criminal resolution was forwarded to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Ronald Machen–who works for Holder–for prosecution. Despite being technically required by law to bring forth criminal charges against Holder, under orders from Holder’s Department of Justice Machen chose to ignore the resolution.

The second part of the contempt resolution–civil contempt of Congress–allowed House Republicans to hire legal staff to challenge President Obama’s assertion of the executive privilege. That lawsuit remains ongoing despite Holder’s and the DOJ’s attempt to dismiss it and settle it.

It’s unclear what’s in the documents Obama asserted privilege over, but the president’s use of the extraordinary power appears weak. There are two types of presidential executive privilege: the presidential communications privilege and the deliberative process privilege. Use of the presidential communications privilege would require that the president himself or his senior-most advisers were involved in the discussions.

Since the president and his cabinet-level officials continually claim they had no knowledge of Operation Fast and Furious until early 2011 when the information became public–and Holder claims he didn’t read the briefing documents he was sent that outlined the scandal and how guns were walking while the operation was ongoing–Obama says he’s using the less powerful deliberative process privilege.

The reason why Obama’s assertion of that deliberative process privilege over these documents is weak at best is because the Supreme Court has held that such a privilege assertion is invalidated by even the suspicion of government wrongdoing. Obama, Holder, the Department of Justice, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and virtually everyone else involved in this scandal have admitted that government wrongdoing actually took place in Operation Fast and Furious.

In Fast and Furious, the ATF "walked" about 2,000 firearms into the hands of the Mexican drug cartels. That means through straw purchasers they allowed sales to happen and didn’t stop the guns from being trafficked even though they had the legal authority to do so and were fully capable of doing so.

Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry and hundreds of Mexican citizens–estimates put it around at least 300–were killed with these firearms.

The Fast and Furious scandal and more is covered in detail in the New York Times best-selling book Corruption Chronicles.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/17/Holder-begs-court-to-indefinitely-delay-group-s-lawsuit-fighting-for-release-of-Obama-s-executive-privilege-Fast-and-Furious-documents

My point was that there is often these accusations that the "mainstream media" is burying news that is not favorable to Obama. I just asked if you believe that this includes Fox News? Personally I believe their are billions of dollars being spent by both democrats and republicans every year trying to dig up absolutely any dirt what so ever on each other - dont you agree?
 

Yes Mr Picker,

ABC had a transcript of the first lady on there website wherein she said a girl in Chicago was killed by an automatic weapon that the gangsta did not need.

On Tuesdays " Good Morning America" they edited that out. Because it wasn't true. Weird . huh?
 

Dave44 said:
Yes Mr Picker,

ABC had a transcript of the first lady on there website wherein she said a girl in Chicago was killed by an automatic weapon that the gangsta did not need.

On Tuesdays " Good Morning America" they edited that out. Because it wasn't true. Weird . huh?

Dave, not that you would follow many of my threads but if you did you would know I completely agree with you. I am the first to say that folks like msnbc, wash post, abc are very much biased to the left. It's funny how you naturally assume that because I question one side that I must be on the other.

No. I firmly believe that there is great bias on BOTH sides of the media so I'm not sure what you are trying to say.

My only question is don't you think their is enough right leaning media that would live to call Obama / democrats out on something they have done wrong?? So I find it very very unlikely that "all media outlets" are suppressing anti Obama information. Wouldn't you agree or do you think fox is in obama's pocket also.

Personally I watch BOTH fox and msnbc to get both sides of the same issue and to the the different issues that each to decide to cover. I figure the truth prob is somewhere in between.

Again I think you will find that I dislike both political parties and spin on both sides of the aisle. Just trying to get to truth, logic and accuracy with as little political spin as possible. Best
 

Picker,
I can get behind that!

I believe that that Fox is telling us half the story becuase they are running scared? MSNBC aka NBC is totally in the tank and most of the others range in between them.
Thanks
Dave
 

Dave44 said:
Yes Mr Picker,

ABC had a transcript of the first lady on there website wherein she said a girl in Chicago was killed by an automatic weapon that the gangsta did not need.

On Tuesdays " Good Morning America" they edited that out. Because it wasn't true. Weird . huh?

Dave, I think you are misunderstanding the post.

I completely agree with you that a majority of the news outlets are left leaning to radically left. And I find it disgusting that many call themselves news sources.

My point is that I find it highly UNlikely that ALL news outlets are suppressing news that make Obama look bad. I believe that Fox News for instance would love to break a story that was negative to Obama or the Democratic Party. Just as I believe msnbc is far left leaning I do believe that Fox is right leaning.

It's funny that our thought process in America is also x vs y. It's always one against the other. I'm neither! I'm pro truth, accuracy, logic, etc. I'm anti spin anti bias, etc.

And speaking of logic, you just used the old 2 wrongs don't make a right argument. If fox did something wrong (which I absolutely did not say you misread) it does not make it or or right just because someone else did it. It's a common response but its completely illogical. Next time you get pulled over for speeding and tell the cop "well everyone else was speeding" see if you get out of the ticket!! Best.
 

Mr Picker, I think you then misunderstand me! I did not make a 2 wrong =right, It was a stand alone statement that did not reflect on your point. Hmm, We seem to be coming from different sides, but it does not matter, I respect you points even if I do not agree with all of your points. On the other hand I was trying to talk with someone at the same I was typing, Maybe I did not make My point concisely?
Respectfully
Dave
 

Sure. In the end each political party are spending billions trying to uncover any little bit of dirt they can on the other side with plenty of outlets to get that info out. I believe each side have biased news outlets and I believe that it is extremely difficult to find unbiased news now a days.
 

Obama still has not come clean on the "fast and furious' scandal, supplying guns to Mexican drug cartels that were then used to kill Mexican citizens.

He keeps sweeping scandals under the carpet and no one in his party or main stream media is even calling him on It...This is what worries us, media is who is suppose to lead in holding the government no matter what party is in office accountable and they are doing nothing.

Ok to ship guns they want to ban to mexican drug cartels but Americans can't have same even though we have states that border Mexico and could be used on American citizens.

Now Mexico has asked obama for a list of all gun owners in states that border Mexico.

THEN, we had the Ollie North "thing"...
 

You don't think David koresh was doing anything wrong?? You might want to study his cult a little bit closer.

David Koresh was not breaking any Federal laws. You name one Federal law he broke. If he was a child molester or some other sexual monster, those laws are covered by the State of Texas, and the state should be the people involved. The BATF raided him because they thought he had full auto weapons, and wasn't paying the $300 license, so what it boils down to is all those kids died because the Branch Davidians didn't pay a tax they didn't owe. It was a BATF gun raid, they shot Koresh first, so the Davidians returned fire, all the while on 911 begging the sheriff to tell them to stop shooting. After the fire the Feds wouldn't let the NRA or anyone else that might know what they are looking at, see the remains of the firearms the Davidians did have, and if there had been a full auto weapon, you can bet your bippy it would have been front and center. So for your edification, it's not against Federal Law to have or be in a "doomsday cult." Remember, this is supposed to be the land of the free. Over all they had less firearms per capita than the average Texan, they were all legal, the raid was done by the BATF. What the cult was doing makes not one whit of difference, show us all a Federal Law they were breaking, you jump into these discussion the big know it all, come on, tell everybody. What Federal law did they break. I'm damn sure more worried about the Feds doing what they did to them than I am a group of people being legally armed, cult or not. You sir, are just blowing the same kind of smoke Reno was blowing at the time, which are all lies, just like Operation Fast and Furious is all lies and coverups. While you are looking for the law they broke, have a drink of coolaid.
 

Which laws in particular do you have a problem with?
You really swore off an entire country just because of their laws?

After reading that, I have to ask: Are you sure you want to be a member of Crispin's Critters?

I won't even send my picture to Mexico for the same reason. What's the problem, am I politically incorrect? Rergading Crispin's Critters, I didn't ask to join, I asked a question and he joined me.
 

I remember reading sometime ago that David Koresh also had a Federal firearms license.
 

BosnMate said:
David Koresh was not breaking any Federal laws. You name one Federal law he broke. If he was a child molester or some other sexual monster, those laws are covered by the State of Texas, and the state should be the people involved. The BATF raided him because they thought he had full auto weapons, and wasn't paying the $300 license, so what it boils down to is all those kids died because the Branch Davidians didn't pay a tax they didn't owe. It was a BATF gun raid, they shot Koresh first, so the Davidians returned fire, all the while on 911 begging the sheriff to tell them to stop shooting. After the fire the Feds wouldn't let the NRA or anyone else that might know what they are looking at, see the remains of the firearms the Davidians did have, and if there had been a full auto weapon, you can bet your bippy it would have been front and center. So for your edification, it's not against Federal Law to have or be in a "doomsday cult." Remember, this is supposed to be the land of the free. Over all they had less firearms per capita than the average Texan, they were all legal, the raid was done by the BATF. What the cult was doing makes not one whit of difference, show us all a Federal Law they were breaking, you jump into these discussion the big know it all, come on, tell everybody. What Federal law did they break. I'm damn sure more worried about the Feds doing what they did to them than I am a group of people being legally armed, cult or not. You sir, are just blowing the same kind of smoke Reno was blowing at the time, which are all lies, just like Operation Fast and Furious is all lies and coverups. While you are looking for the law they broke, have a drink of coolaid.

Didn't you just answer the federal law he broke? And if the government used that as a pretext to attempt to remove said guns from the cult and bring the women and children to safety I think that's a good move.

Was the handling of the entire affair bungled - of course. I guess I've seen enough evidence of the damage these cults can cause to believe that authorities should act proactively against them.

I wished someone would have moved earlier against Jim jones, don't you?
 

I thin ki read that the pretext of the invasion was not paying the tax on auto weapons, and then they never showed or proved that one was there, of course the dead tell no tales either way.
 

Didn't you just answer the federal law he broke?

No I didn't. It's not against the law to have a cult. We had the Rajinish here in Oregon, and they actually poisoned people. They were armed to the teeth, legally, and they had the right to be armed, and nobody did anything to them, until they committed murder and attempted murder, and the state of Oregon went after them, not the Feds. The police are not allowed to do preemptive strikes, they are required to provide proof first. So a cop goes to a judge to get the warrant first. Then they pull their raid. So they either lied to the judge, or the judge issued on suspicion, but the BATF were scared, (cowards or obeying Reno's orders) and started shooting first. Koresh was in the door, saying "lets talk" and the BATF shot him, that was the first shot fired. So I'm asking again, what Federal law did they break? So no matter how bad Jones or the Rajinish, or hare krishina are, the law doesn't allow preemptive strikes. When Bush had congress declare war on the terrorists then preemptive strikes are legal, but Obama says no more war, so he is in fact breaking the law with preemptive drone strikes. You don't get to say they were a cult and got what they deserved, the Feds broke the law and killed a bunch of little kids over non payment of a tax that wasn't owed. Please show me a law that lets the BATF raid a cult because somebody doesn't like them. There is more of a law about me saying political incorrect speech than the Branch Davidians broke. So if I'm wrong, show us all the law they broke. The BATF wasn't a bit interested in the women and kids, there was just a suspicion of full auto weapons, that's all. If they were interested in women and kids why didn't they raid the Rajinish, they had lots of guns. Ane what about Randy Weaver. They killed his dog, his son, and his wife, and Randy is not in jail, and the Feds lost a big suit and paid Randy millions because he wasn't guilty. That's the crap that causes some of us to be a bit paranoid.
 

BosnMate said:
No I didn't. It's not against the law to have a cult. We had the Rajinish here in Oregon, and they actually poisoned people. They were armed to the teeth, legally, and they had the right to be armed, and nobody did anything to them, until they committed murder and attempted murder, and the state of Oregon went after them, not the Feds. The police are not allowed to do preemptive strikes, they are required to provide proof first. So a cop goes to a judge to get the warrant first. Then they pull their raid. So they either lied to the judge, or the judge issued on suspicion, but the BATF were scared, (cowards or obeying Reno's orders) and started shooting first. Koresh was in the door, saying "lets talk" and the BATF shot him, that was the first shot fired. So I'm asking again, what Federal law did they break? So no matter how bad Jones or the Rajinish, or hare krishina are, the law doesn't allow preemptive strikes. When Bush had congress declare war on the terrorists then preemptive strikes are legal, but Obama says no more war, so he is in fact breaking the law with preemptive drone strikes. You don't get to say they were a cult and got what they deserved, the Feds broke the law and killed a bunch of little kids over non payment of a tax that wasn't owed. Please show me a law that lets the BATF raid a cult because somebody doesn't like them. There is more of a law about me saying political incorrect speech than the Branch Davidians broke. So if I'm wrong, show us all the law they broke. The BATF wasn't a bit interested in the women and kids, there was just a suspicion of full auto weapons, that's all. If they were interested in women and kids why didn't they raid the Rajinish, they had lots of guns. Ane what about Randy Weaver. They killed his dog, his son, and his wife, and Randy is not in jail, and the Feds lost a big suit and paid Randy millions because he wasn't guilty. That's the crap that causes some of us to be a bit paranoid.

Ok, I thought you stated that they broke federal fire arms law by possessing an automatic weapon without a license / paying taxes? Didnt you write that?
 

Ok, I thought you stated that they broke federal fire arms law by possessing an automatic weapon without a license / paying taxes? Didnt you write that?

No I didn't, I'll try and type slower, perhaps that will help. Here is an exact quote with emphasis added, "The BATF raided him because they thought he had full auto weapons, and wasn't paying the $300 license, so what it boils down to is all those kids died because the Branch Davidians didn't pay a tax they didn't owe." Pretty simple, now what law did the Davidians break that was so horrible that all those kids needed to die. Janet Reno made the remark that no one should be allowed to have an armory. Asked what she considered an armory, she stated a number of guns, I don't remember how many, but I do remember her saying no one should have more than a thousand rounds of ammunition. .22 long rifle ammunition is commonly purchased in 500 round bricks. I've been known to have four or five of those at a time, then there is ammo for every other gun I own, some more than others. So I'm way over her perceived limit, in both numbers of guns and amount of ammo. So are the feds going to come and kill my wife and my dog like they did Randy Weaver. I know, Janet Reno is no longer in business, my only hope is she is in a fetal position from PTSD caused by the murder of those children. No, Holder is there now, and he's the same brainyack that's covering up fast and furious. Yeah, I'm paranoid, I no longer trust my government. Am I worried about them coming for my guns? Not right away. Do I think they are laying plans to do that right now? Damn right I do. It comes down to a simple little old Boy Scout motto, "Be Prepared."
 

"Reason: It was deleted....." A valid reason? Please enlighten me in regards to the validity of your statement please.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Top Member Reactions

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top