INSPECTOR GENERAL's REPORT: FAST & FURIOUS

@parados,

parados wrote:

You are bereft of any intelligence with that argument.

Quote:
They were hoping to back this effort by pretending that assault weapons from America are fueling the violence in Mexico.

The scandal here is that they HID it from the Congress and the American public. So by not telling you about it they were going to use your LACK of knowledge to convince you that something you didn't know about was causing something.

Your argument makes absolutely no sense oralloy. Gun walking had been going on for almost 6 years. What were they waiting for? Did they need to keep it secret for 10 years before the sprung this grand conspiracy on us? Maybe you need to get a better tin foil hat because the facts in the case don't support your argument that it was an attempt to sway public opinion.

I don 't believe that u r describing it accurately,
tho there was some lesser degree of involvement under W.
Presumably, it will be revealed at trial.

2 Replies

@RABEL222,

RABEL222 wrote:

I wonder how David feels about Libya.
This is his vision of a free society.
Open access to guns and militias all over the place.

I am not going to compare America to a bunch of wild Moslems,
but until the first third of the 19OOs, that perfect freedom
of access to guns in our local hardware stores was pervasive,
the same as to hammers & screwdrivers. In Vermont, thay
have never had any gun laws, with a very low rate of crime,
as verified by the FBI's annual statistics.

That is, indeed, a free society, as u accurately expressed it.
That was the vu of the Founders who enacted the US Constitution,
and its Bill of Rights; it was their vu of a FREE America.

I remain very proud to adopt & support that "vision of a free society". YES!

David

0 Replies

I dont believe this crap. I was just expressing what I thought you believe and wondering how you equate freedom with having armed bands roaming around shooting people who disagree with them.

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

I don 't believe that u r describing it accurately,
tho there was some lesser degree of involvement under W.

Obviously you would rather make silly statements without reading anything. I wonder how you can accuse me of not describing it accurately. What did I get wrong based on the report? Wishful thinking on your part doesn't change any facts. Gun walking started in 2006.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

You are bereft of any intelligence with that argument.

Your dispute is with the truth. All I did was point out what the truth is.

parados wrote:

The scandal here is that they HID it from the Congress and the American public.

Some people find scandal in the fact that they did it al all.

parados wrote:

So by not telling you about it they were going to use your LACK of knowledge to convince you that something you didn't know about was causing something.

Your argument makes absolutely no sense oralloy. Gun walking had been going on for almost 6 years. What were they waiting for? Did they need to keep it secret for 10 years before the sprung this grand conspiracy on us?

They were waiting to cobble together enough evidence to support a bogus claim about a supposed flow of guns to Mexico.

Had they ever managed to get that evidence, it all would have been revealed to the public with great fanfare. (And right now you would be citing their report and expressing frustration over my continued denial that there was any truth to it.)

parados wrote:

Maybe you need to get a better tin foil hat

I don't do tinfoil. I just point out the truth.

parados wrote:

because the facts in the case don't support your argument that it was an attempt to sway public opinion.

Sure they do. That's what this whole "guns to Mexico" fallacy is about. The freedom haters were hoping that this would be the foundation for a major assault on the Constitution.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

tho there was some lesser degree of involvement under W.
Presumably, it will be revealed at trial.

A trial would be counterproductive. The best course is to have this simmer slowly in the background so that the entire Obama Administration is paralyzed from ever acting on their dreams of violating the Second Amendment.

0 Replies

@RABEL222,

RABEL222 wrote:

I dont believe this crap.

By "crap" do you mean our freedom and civil rights??

RABEL222 wrote:

I was just expressing what I thought you believe and wondering how you equate freedom with having armed bands roaming around shooting people who disagree with them.

No one said anything about shooting people for merely disagreeing with them.

0 Replies

@parados,

DAVID wrote:

I don 't believe that u r describing it accurately,
tho there was some lesser degree of involvement under W.

parados wrote:

Obviously you would rather make silly statements without reading anything.

It does not matter; not to me.
I live in a state of retirement; I am not a leader.
Conservative LEADERS will attend to this scandal
and to the machinery of government that thereunto pertains.
I need not make myself an expert on this scandal.

I can relax; I will.

parados wrote:

I wonder how you can accuse me of not describing it accurately. What did I get wrong based on the report?

I have only read a summary of the report.
What I remember reading (however vaguely) before that report,
was that under W, some of the practices that led up to the scandal
existed in a less severe form. I cannot be more specific.

Putatively, under obama, those principles became applied
to *craft public opinion* into a state of alarm
in regard to Mexican criminals, for the purpose of making
free access to guns look bad qua Mexicans, in liberal propaganda.
The repressionists woud then use that to get
statutory anti-freedom gun controls enacted.

I support a laissez faire free market in guns, the same as Bibles & newspapers,
restoring the status quo ante until around the first third of the 19OOs thru most of America.

David

1 Reply

@RABEL222,

RABEL222 wrote:

I dont believe this crap.

What is it that u do not believe??

RABEL222 wrote:

I was just expressing what I thought you believe

I hope that my post clarified what I BELIEVE.
I believe in a laissez faire free market in guns and ammunition,
the same as in Bibles and in newspapers, restoring the status quo ante
thru the first third of the 19OOs, and as it has continued freely thru NOW
in the State of Vermont, with no gun laws and a very low annual crime rate.
More importantly: that is what THE FOUNDERS BELIEVED
when thay wrote the Bill of Rights in 1789 (ratified on Dec. 15, 1791).

RABEL222 wrote:

and wondering how you equate freedom with having armed bands
roaming around shooting people who disagree with them.

Do u know that to be a fact in Libya, Mr. 222??
I am not very familiar with current events in Libya,
qua roaming "bands". That might be in progress
as part of their revolution; I dunno.
Perhaps u will enlighten me.
That has never been the American experience
(except that Patriotic armed forces did kill
some Tory civilians in the Revolutionary War).

The Bill of Rights does protect the rights of private militia.
Police did not exist in the USA in the 17OOs.

David

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

Some people find scandal in the fact that they did it al all.

Who would that be? If someone actually found scandal in the fact that they did it then why don't they wonder why it started in 2006 instead of using it as a political tool to attack the other party?

Quote:

They were waiting to cobble together enough evidence to support a bogus claim about a supposed flow of guns to Mexico.

And that's my point oralloy. Guns started flowing in 2006. Are you really going to argue that this was a conspiracy with a 5 or 10 year plan?

Quote:

Had they ever managed to get that evidence, it all would have been revealed to the public with great fanfare.

They never managed to get that evidence? BS. The report clearly shows they were tracing guns as the crossed the border. The guns were showing up at Mexican crime scenes. Stories were appearing in the papers 2 years ago about the flow of guns so why were they waiting to present their fanfare? Why were stories about the flow of guns to Mexico around before Fast and Furious even started?

Quote:

Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, October 7, 2010

IN MEXICO CITY Efforts to stem the smuggling of weapons from the United States to Mexican drug cartels have been frustrated by bureaucratic infighting, a lack of training and the delayed delivery of a computer program to Mexico, according to U.S. and Mexican officials.

In the past four years, Mexico has submitted information about more than 74,000 guns seized south of the border that the government suspects were smuggled from the United States.

So... yes, you do do tinfoil. Your conspiracy crap is just that - conspiracy crap.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

It does not matter; not to me.
I live in a state of retirement; I am not a leader.
Conservative LEADERS will attend to this scandal
and to the machinery of government that thereunto pertains.
I need not make myself an expert on this scandal.

I can relax; I will.

Obviously you are a blind sheep led easily around by the nose and you don't give a damn about actual facts. You willfully believe the lies told to you and then you trumpet that you are ignorant and don't give a damn. Well good for you but don't argue that your statements aren't silly if you aren't willing to do even the most basic search for facts.

Quote:

parados wrote:
I wonder how you can accuse me of not describing it accurately. What did I get wrong based on the report?
I have only read a summary of the report.
What I remember reading (however vaguely) before that report,
was that under W, some of the practices that led up to the scandal
existed in a less severe form. I cannot be more specific.

Wow.. that's nice. I'll bet you read that Obama was born in Kenya too.

Quote:

Putatively, under obama, those principles became applied
to *craft public opinion* into a state of alarm
in regard to Mexican criminals, for the purpose of making
free access to guns look bad qua Mexicans, in liberal propaganda.
The repressionists woud then use that to get
statutory anti-freedom gun controls enacted.

And the evidence of this is what? Find me ONE reasonably sourced story from a credible news organization where the Obama administration acted in that fashion or even considered it. Willful ignorance on your part again. You are not just silly but now you are showing yourself to be stupid.

But I am curious where Obama keeps his time machine David. Certainly he must have one if he went back to 2006 to order the ATF to start gun walking back then.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

It does not matter; not to me.
I live in a state of retirement; I am not a leader.
Conservative LEADERS will attend to this scandal
and to the machinery of government that thereunto pertains.
I need not make myself an expert on this scandal.

I can relax; I will.

Obviously you are a blind sheep led easily around by the nose and you don't give a damn about actual facts. You willfully believe the lies told to you and then you trumpet that you are ignorant and don't give a damn. Well good for you but don't argue that your statements aren't silly if you aren't willing to do even the most basic search for facts.

Quote:

parados wrote:
I wonder how you can accuse me of not describing it accurately. What did I get wrong based on the report?
I have only read a summary of the report.
What I remember reading (however vaguely) before that report,
was that under W, some of the practices that led up to the scandal
existed in a less severe form. I cannot be more specific.
Wow.. that's nice. I'll bet you read that Obama was born in Kenya too.

Quote:

Putatively, under obama, those principles became applied
to *craft public opinion* into a state of alarm
in regard to Mexican criminals, for the purpose of making
free access to guns look bad qua Mexicans, in liberal propaganda.
The repressionists woud then use that to get
statutory anti-freedom gun controls enacted.
And the evidence of this is what? Find me ONE reasonably sourced story from a credible news organization where the Obama administration acted in that fashion or even considered it. Willful ignorance on your part again. You are not just silly but now you are showing yourself to be stupid.

But I am curious where Obama keeps his time machine David. Certainly he must have one if he went back to 2006 to order the ATF to start gun walking back then.

Your insults have no effect; like water off a duck.
I have no wish to make a good impression on u.
Taking the trouble to make myself an expert
on this scandal woud be like getting all dressed up
with nowhere to go. Conservative LEADERS will take care of business.
I can lay back n enjoy the show. I will.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Now you are just bleating.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

oralloy wrote:
Some people find scandal in the fact that they did it at all.

Who would that be? If someone actually found scandal in the fact that they did it then why don't they wonder why it started in 2006 instead of using it as a political tool to attack the other party?

This is really best used as a political tool to neutralize action on gun control (particularly relating to assault weapons). It really does not have much utility beyond that.

Had the Bush Administration been trying to ban assault weapons, this would have been used to neutralize that effort as well.

parados wrote:

oralloy wrote:
They were waiting to cobble together enough evidence to support a bogus claim about a supposed flow of guns to Mexico.

And that's my point oralloy. Guns started flowing in 2006. Are you really going to argue that this was a conspiracy with a 5 or 10 year plan?

I doubt there was a timeline involved. I'm also not sure I would use the term conspiracy. They just started investigating to try to prove the bogus claims about US guns fueling Mexican violence.

parados wrote:

oralloy wrote:
Had they ever managed to get that evidence, it all would have been revealed to the public with great fanfare.

They never managed to get that evidence? BS. The report clearly shows they were tracing guns as the crossed the border. The guns were showing up at Mexican crime scenes. Stories were appearing in the papers 2 years ago about the flow of guns so why were they waiting to present their fanfare?

Evidently not enough evidence to act on.

parados wrote:

Why were stories about the flow of guns to Mexico around before Fast and Furious even started?

Quote:
Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, October 7, 2010

IN MEXICO CITY Efforts to stem the smuggling of weapons from the United States to Mexican drug cartels have been frustrated by bureaucratic infighting, a lack of training and the delayed delivery of a computer program to Mexico, according to U.S. and Mexican officials.

In the past four years, Mexico has submitted information about more than 74,000 guns seized south of the border that the government suspects were smuggled from the United States.

Because the freedom haters have been using the "US guns fueling Mexican violence" fallacy for some time now.

parados wrote:

So... yes, you do do tinfoil.

No, I just point out reality.

parados wrote:

Your conspiracy crap is just that - conspiracy crap.

No such conspiracy crap. The freedom haters really did hope that the "US guns fueling Mexican violence" fallacy would bolster a new round of civil rights violations.

1 Reply

@parados,

Your insult is dismissed as empty foolishness.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

What a bunch of scatterbrained nonsense from you.

They started investigating it to ban weapons except when they started it to prove something that didn't exist except when they started it for what else?

You attempt to give them motives not found in the facts or the timeline. There is no evidence that Obama was doing this to ban assault weapons. In fact the time line would show that to not be true and the evidence of who had knowledge when completely destroys any argument that Obama was planning this.. You are just taking facts and throwing your **** at it hoping some of it will make sense when it doesn't.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

What a bunch of scatterbrained nonsense from you.

They started investigating it to ban weapons except when they started it to prove something that didn't exist except when they started it for what else?

The freedom haters were (are) hoping for a new assault weapons ban.

The freedom haters were (are) using a bogus claim that US guns are fueling Mexican violence, to try to justify the atrocity against freedom that they hope to perpetrate.

This investigation was meant to prove the fallacy about American guns fueling Mexican violence.

parados wrote:

You attempt to give them motives not found in the facts or the timeline. There is no evidence that Obama was doing this to ban assault weapons. In fact the time line would show that to not be true and the evidence of who had knowledge when completely destroys any argument that Obama was planning this.. You are just taking facts and throwing your **** at it hoping some of it will make sense when it doesn't.

Obama's degree of culpability is beside the point. This scandal is still useful in preventing any new attempts to ban assault weapons.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

The freedom haters were (are) hoping for a new assault weapons ban.

Only if your tin foil hat fell off recently. There certainly isn't any evidence to support your irrational fears.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

oralloy wrote:
The freedom haters were (are) hoping for a new assault weapons ban.

Only if your tin foil hat fell off recently. There certainly isn't any evidence to support your irrational fears.

Have you already forgotten the fact that one of the first things Obama did when he got to the White House was try to ban assault weapons, using the "guns flowing to Mexico" fallacy to justify it?

Once again I give my thanks to Nancy Pelosi for curtailing Obama's urge to destroy the Constitution. We are all freer for her efforts.

I still have the links bookmarked. Time for me to post them again?

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

I still have the links bookmarked. Time for me to post them again?

Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban

WASHINGTON, Feb. 25, 2009
ABC NEWS

The Obama administration will seek to reinstate the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 during the Bush administration, Attorney General Eric Holder said today.

"As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons," Holder told reporters.

Holder said that putting the ban back in place would not only be a positive move by the United States, it would help cut down on the flow of guns going across the border into Mexico, which is struggling with heavy violence among drug cartels along the border.

"I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum." Holder said at a news conference on the arrest of more than 700 people in a drug enforcement crackdown on Mexican drug cartels operating in the U.S.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=6960824

Pelosi throws cold water on weapons ban

February 26, 2009
TheHill.com

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tossed cold water on the prospect of reinstating the assault weapons ban, highlighting Democrats’ reluctance to take on gun issues.

Attorney General Eric Holder raised the prospect Wednesday that the administration would push to bring back the ban. But Pelosi (D-Calif.) indicated on Thursday that he never talked to her. The Speaker gave a flat “no” when asked if she had talked to administration officials about the ban.

“On that score, I think we need to enforce the laws we have right now,” Pelosi said at her weekly news conference. “I think it's clear the Bush administration didn’t do that.”

Outside of the dig at the recent Republican president, that phrase is the stock line of those who don’t want to pass new gun control laws, such as the National Rifle Association.

The White House declined to comment on Holder's remarks, referring reporters to the Department of Justice. The DoJ did not respond to The Hill's request for comment.

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/18461-pelosi-throws-cold-water-on-weapons-ban

Obama: 'I have not backed off' on assault weapons ban

April 16, 2009
TheHill.com

Political realities make reinstating the assault weapons ban extraordinarily difficult, President Obama said Thursday, but he stressed he is still in favor of the gun control measure.

Obama, joined by Mexican President Felipe Calderon at a press conference in Mexico City, said he and Calderon discussed the ban "extensively" during their meeting earlier in the day.

Mexican officials have said in recent days that they would like to see the ban reinstated, noting that more than 90 percent of guns recovered in Mexico come from the U.S.

The White House was quick to blunt comments Attorney General Eric Holder made earlier this year supportive of pursuing a reinstatement, but Obama said Thursday that he has not changed his position.

"I have not backed off at all from my belief that the assault weapons ban makes sense," Obama said, adding that he is not "under any illusions that reinstating that ban would be easy."

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/19221-obama-i-have-not-backed-off-on-assault-weapons-ban

0 Replies

INSPECTOR GENERAL's REPORT: FAST & FURIOUS

Quick Links

My Account

able2know