Fast & Furious

[Markusanthem]

He isn't going to resign in disgrace for ANYONE - he's past 60 years old and when he retires he is going to want his Federal pension.

It's ludicrous (I don't think RETS said it) to suggest that Obama and Holder are waging some sort of "War against the 2nd Amendment." Holder wouldn't do that, even if Obama would, but let me be clear - to suggest that either one of them would do this is crazy talk.

But RETS, you shouldn't be defending people who accuse them of such things, because there is even less evidence of that, than of the simple coverup you accuse Holder of perpetrating. No, I don't lack common sense by not buying the "2nd Amendment" claptrap. That's...nuts!

It is nuts and yet that's exactly what they were doing!

Politics is more important than anything to these people and Holder should be held accountable for the deaths it caused.

 

[Assuredcw]

It is nuts and yet that's exactly what they were doing!

Politics is more important than anything to these people and Holder should be held accountable for the deaths it caused.

I don't buy it. Holder is over 60 years old and he wants his Federal pension. He isn't going to do something like that for anyone. It's better to ask someone to do this, who didn't spend more than 20 years as a Federal Judge and US Attorney. But we will know soon enough who was behind the events that lead to Terry's death, so there is no point in anyone sticking their necks out too far to accuse AG Holder of a conspiracy against gun owners. There is no proof of any such conspiracy, let alone proof that Holder would have agreed to participate in it.

Oh, and there is just one more thing. Issa has accused AG Holder of any number of things in the contempt draft. Let's stick to what is contained in the contempt draft for the purposes of this discussion. Because this 2nd Amendment stuff is so outlandish that Issa doesn't even mention it.

Thank you.

 

[RETS]

He isn't going to resign in disgrace for ANYONE - he's past 60 years old and when he retires he is going to want his Federal pension.

So tell me this- Why is Holder so different from every other man and woman going on 60 who has traded their pensions for prison terms?

It's ludicrous (I don't think RETS said it) to suggest that Obama and Holder are waging some sort of "War against the 2nd Amendment." Holder wouldn't do that, even if Obama would, but let me be clear - to suggest that either one of them would do this is crazy talk.

It's crazy to believe ANY human above being shady. It simply is. Moreover, as I already proved, Holder has enough on his record to show that his support of the Second is, at best, questionable.

But RETS, you shouldn't be defending people who accuse them of such things, because there is even less evidence of that, than of the simple coverup you accuse Holder of perpetrating. No, I don't lack common sense by not buying the "2nd Amendment" claptrap. That's...nuts!

I am defending no one. I am defending a claim that is, for all intents and purposes, worthy of consideration. Especially because it ties into this topic rather seriously.

...so there is no point in anyone sticking their necks out too far to accuse AG Holder of a conspiracy against gun owners. There is no proof of any such conspiracy, let alone proof that Holder would have agreed to participate in it.

There is his own words. Again, these are HIS words. These are HIS actions. This is HIS record. Isn't that what's on proverbial trial?

Oh, and there is just one more thing. Issa has accused AG Holder of any number of things in the contempt draft. Let's stick to what is contained in the contempt draft for the purposes of this discussion. Because this 2nd Amendment stuff is so outlandish that Issa doesn't even mention it.

Thank you.

That's funny, because YOU didn't seem interested in having a discussion on what he was actually being held in contempt for. You continually deflected and denied everything that was presented. Someone else comes along with another theory as to WHY Holder would do what he did, and you willingly went along with it... Until evidence was presented that you have nothing to counteract with. Now, suddenly, you want nothing to do with it.

In short, Assured, this topic- This thread- Is dead in the water. You have killed it, because you refuse to admit, in the face of everything that has been presented, that Holder could be anything other than your white knight in shining armor, coming to hand out divine justice.

 

[Assuredcw]

What?!

RETS, the Homeland Security Inspector General is conducting an investigation. Should I tell him to stop now, because YOU have figured this out?

Let's just wait, OK?

 

[RETS]

What?!

RETS, the Homeland Security Inspector General is conducting an investigation. Should I tell him to stop now, because YOU have figured this out?

Let's just wait, OK?

Wait for what, exactly? Let's review, shall we?

You originally asked if Holder should be held in contempt. By any and every court standard, yes he should be. There is no denying that- Yet you do. Against all evidence, you deny that he is guilty of perjury. ...And, let me point out, that the numbers for your poll now exceed three to one in favor of his being held in contempt.

Then, someone brought up that he is responsible for the actions of those beneath him. Again, by all standards, (be they military, federal, state, local or business), he is, in fact, responsible and accountable for the actions of those beneath him. This also cannot be denied- Yet you deny it, again in the face of every accepted practice throughout the United States.

Then, someone pointed out that this could, and I stress "could," be an attempt at an end run around the Second Amendment. An attempt to severely cripple, if not completely destroy, the citizen's right to bear arms. Here again, Holder's own words damn him. He is not speaking outright against the Second Amendment, but he is obviously no friend, either.

Still, however, you contend that he is nothing more than a squeaky clean angel in disguise; a veritable messiah for our legal system. You contend that he is innocent of all, and I stress "all," wrongdoing- In spite of the fact that he is absolutely guilty of perjury; in spite of the fact that he should by all means be held accountable for the actions of those beneath him; and in spite of the fact that there is enough evidence from his own lips to cast doubt on his ability to uphold the entire Bill of Rights.

You want us to go back to the main topic? All right- Holder should be found in contempt. He lied under oath: Contempt. He refused to give all the documents ordered of him, (and failed to attempt an understanding about the withholding): Contempt.

Would you like us to go further, perhaps, to renew the evolved topic of his culpability in the mishandling of F&F? Let's look at it- Holder is responsible, and should be held accountable, for the actions of those beneath him. Period.

Let's address the Second Amendment issue once more: Is he a friend of the right to bear arms? No, from his own mouth, he is not. Does that have bearing on his ability to do his job? Yes, it absolutely does. Does it prove that he is/was using F&F as a means of destroying that right? No, but it does cast doubt on his ability to handle the issue.


The IG is investigating him- Fine. Let him/her investigate. With that said, doesn't the IG take orders from the head of Homeland Security? And isn't the head of Homeland Security a woman by the name of Janet Napolitano?

That, Assured, does not lend an air of trustworthiness to the IG's ability to do his/her job. Why? Well, let's take a look at where JN has worked:

• She worked in Phoenix with the Lewis and Roca law firm.
  
• She operated out of Kingman for a short time while investigating Michael Fortier. For those who might not remember, he and his wife Lori supplied Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols with the weapons they required for their attack on Oklahoma City- And if you read through the papers of the investigation, there were questions as to where McVeigh and Nichols were able to get a hold of military issue, supposedly accounted for weaponry.

Where was F&F taking place? What areas have been specifically noted as being of interest in the investigation? Phoenix and Kingman are on the list of locations in question.


Now, let's look at Napolitano's competency. Yes, she's worked as a lawyer. Yes, she was appointed AG of Arizona by Clinton. And yes, she served as governor of Arizona.

• However, as governor, she vetoed a parental notification bill which would have made it illegal to give an abortion to a girl under the age of eighteen without parental consent. She also vetoed a bill that banned partial-birth abortion. She vetoed two separate illegal immigration bills, stating "...immigration is primarily federal... ...it doesn’t allow law enforcement to focus on where law enforcement needs to focus and to prioritize the way law enforcement needs the ability to prioritize for the protection of the public safety." This statement shows a remarkable lack of understanding, mostly because law enforcement needs to have an applicable measure to use when dealing with illegal immigrant crime. Moreover, she did this after declaring a state of emergency in Arizona and spending millions on National Guard deployment at the border.
  
• She made the statement that the terrorists involved in 9/11 crossed the Canadian border- This is so far from reality that it is mind boggling. To date, only one terrorist was ever caught slipping across the border, and the Canadians were already chasing him.
  
• When the Flight 253 terrorist was apprehended, she made the statement that "the system worked." In truth, the system had failed miserably. The terrorist was apprehended AFTER he had already boarded the plane, AND FLOWN INTO DETRIOT. Again, this is not a gaffe; the facts of the case were being reported accurately before she ever appeared with this statement.
  
• She stated that local jurisdictions could opt out of the Secure Communities program during an interview, when in fact the deportation program is mandatory. This is not a gaffe- The program has been around for some time, and she was fully aware of it. She was simply attempting to cover up the reality.
  
• She issued a ban on toner and ink cartridges, citing a single, failed plot uncovered in Yemen.
  
• She instituted the invasive pat-down procedures we must now endure to even set foot inside an airport terminal, citing a failed underwear bomb plot.
  
• She instituted a program with WalMart that is remarkably similar to Cold War era Russia, and the efforts of Joseph McCarthy.

Does this honestly sound like someone who can oversee a truly unbiased investigation?!




All in all, I'm afraid, I have no faith whatsoever in Eric Holder's ability to prosecute any case involving the Second Amendment; or his ability to be forthright and truthful; nor in his competency as AG.

I have no faith in the Department of Homeland Security's ability to investigate the matter while remaining unbiased.

Furthermore, I have no faith in the Obama Administration's abilities or willingness to seek truth, or justice, in this case.


However- No one within this thread has yet passed judgment, (save on the matter of contempt), except YOU.

Yes, ma'am- You. You have passed judgment on Holder, on the case, and on everything connected to it. And you are the only one to have done so.


Thus, I repeat back to you:

"...the Homeland Security Inspector General is conducting an investigation. Should I tell him to stop now, because YOU have figured this out?"

 

[Assuredcw]

All in all, I'm afraid, I have no faith whatsoever in Eric Holder's ability to prosecute any case involving the Second Amendment; or his ability to be forthright and truthful; nor in his competency as AG.

Then it's a good thing that it isn't up to you...

 

[Rion]

Wait for what, exactly? Let's review, shall we?

You originally asked if Holder should be held in contempt. By any and every court standard, yes he should be. There is no denying that- Yet you do. Against all evidence, you deny that he is guilty of perjury. ...And, let me point out, that the numbers for your poll now exceed three to one in favor of his being held in contempt.

Then, someone brought up that he is responsible for the actions of those beneath him. Again, by all standards, (be they military, federal, state, local or business), he is, in fact, responsible and accountable for the actions of those beneath him. This also cannot be denied- Yet you deny it, again in the face of every accepted practice throughout the United States.

Then, someone pointed out that this could, and I stress "could," be an attempt at an end run around the Second Amendment. An attempt to severely cripple, if not completely destroy, the citizen's right to bear arms. Here again, Holder's own words damn him. He is not speaking outright against the Second Amendment, but he is obviously no friend, either.

Still, however, you contend that he is nothing more than a squeaky clean angel in disguise; a veritable messiah for our legal system. You contend that he is innocent of all, and I stress "all," wrongdoing- In spite of the fact that he is absolutely guilty of perjury; in spite of the fact that he should by all means be held accountable for the actions of those beneath him; and in spite of the fact that there is enough evidence from his own lips to cast doubt on his ability to uphold the entire Bill of Rights.

You want us to go back to the main topic? All right- Holder should be found in contempt. He lied under oath: Contempt. He refused to give all the documents ordered of him, (and failed to attempt an understanding about the withholding): Contempt.

Would you like us to go further, perhaps, to renew the evolved topic of his culpability in the mishandling of F&F? Let's look at it- Holder is responsible, and should be held accountable, for the actions of those beneath him. Period.

Let's address the Second Amendment issue once more: Is he a friend of the right to bear arms? No, from his own mouth, he is not. Does that have bearing on his ability to do his job? Yes, it absolutely does. Does it prove that he is/was using F&F as a means of destroying that right? No, but it does cast doubt on his ability to handle the issue.


The IG is investigating him- Fine. Let him/her investigate. With that said, doesn't the IG take orders from the head of Homeland Security? And isn't the head of Homeland Security a woman by the name of Janet Napolitano?

That, Assured, does not lend an air of trustworthiness to the IG's ability to do his/her job. Why? Well, let's take a look at where JN has worked:

• She worked in Phoenix with the Lewis and Roca law firm.
  
• She operated out of Kingman for a short time while investigating Michael Fortier. For those who might not remember, he and his wife Lori supplied Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols with the weapons they required for their attack on Oklahoma City- And if you read through the papers of the investigation, there were questions as to where McVeigh and Nichols were able to get a hold of military issue, supposedly accounted for weaponry.

Where was F&F taking place? What areas have been specifically noted as being of interest in the investigation? Phoenix and Kingman are on the list of locations in question.


Now, let's look at Napolitano's competency. Yes, she's worked as a lawyer. Yes, she was appointed AG of Arizona by Clinton. And yes, she served as governor of Arizona.

• However, as governor, she vetoed a parental notification bill which would have made it illegal to give an abortion to a girl under the age of eighteen without parental consent. She also vetoed a bill that banned partial-birth abortion. She vetoed two separate illegal immigration bills, stating "...immigration is primarily federal... ...it doesn’t allow law enforcement to focus on where law enforcement needs to focus and to prioritize the way law enforcement needs the ability to prioritize for the protection of the public safety." This statement shows a remarkable lack of understanding, mostly because law enforcement needs to have an applicable measure to use when dealing with illegal immigrant crime. Moreover, she did this after declaring a state of emergency in Arizona and spending millions on National Guard deployment at the border.
  
• She made the statement that the terrorists involved in 9/11 crossed the Canadian border- This is so far from reality that it is mind boggling. To date, only one terrorist was ever caught slipping across the border, and the Canadians were already chasing him.
  
• When the Flight 253 terrorist was apprehended, she made the statement that "the system worked." In truth, the system had failed miserably. The terrorist was apprehended AFTER he had already boarded the plane, AND FLOWN INTO DETRIOT. Again, this is not a gaffe; the facts of the case were being reported accurately before she ever appeared with this statement.
  
• She stated that local jurisdictions could opt out of the Secure Communities program during an interview, when in fact the deportation program is mandatory. This is not a gaffe- The program has been around for some time, and she was fully aware of it. She was simply attempting to cover up the reality.
  
• She issued a ban on toner and ink cartridges, citing a single, failed plot uncovered in Yemen.
  
• She instituted the invasive pat-down procedures we must now endure to even set foot inside an airport terminal, citing a failed underwear bomb plot.
  
• She instituted a program with WalMart that is remarkably similar to Cold War era Russia, and the efforts of Joseph McCarthy.

Does this honestly sound like someone who can oversee a truly unbiased investigation?!




All in all, I'm afraid, I have no faith whatsoever in Eric Holder's ability to prosecute any case involving the Second Amendment; or his ability to be forthright and truthful; nor in his competency as AG.

I have no faith in the Department of Homeland Security's ability to investigate the matter while remaining unbiased.

Furthermore, I have no faith in the Obama Administration's abilities or willingness to seek truth, or justice, in this case.


However- No one within this thread has yet passed judgment, (save on the matter of contempt), except YOU.

Yes, ma'am- You. You have passed judgment on Holder, on the case, and on everything connected to it. And you are the only one to have done so.


Thus, I repeat back to you:

"...the Homeland Security Inspector General is conducting an investigation. Should I tell him to stop now, because YOU have figured this out?"

Can I get an Amen?

Btw, what was that about Wal-Mart?

 

[RETS]

Then it's a good thing that it isn't up to you...

Likewise. And if that's all you got from my post, then you are far worse off than I first thought.

Can I get an Amen?

Btw, what was that about Wal-Mart?

Janet Napolitano struck a deal between her Homeland Security and WalMart, where she periodically pops onto their tv monitors and encourages people to report any abnormal behavior to a manager or to security. That in and of itself isn't so bad, but she goes on to say that in doing so the person(s) listening/watching could "save countless lives."

 

[Assuredcw]

You don't have to like them. I don't even think they CARE if you like them.

Both of them are VERY busy and have critical jobs, and I certainly wouldn't want either of them interfered with.

Translating it so that you can follow this: I don't want the job function interfered with. I am sure you wouldn't either. You might see both of them sticking around for another 4 years. No point in getting too upset.

Now if terrorists were to strike again the way they did in 2001, THAT would be worth getting upset about. This is small potatoes.

 

[RETS]

You don't have to like them. I don't even think they CARE if you like them.

Both of them are VERY busy and have critical jobs, and I certainly wouldn't want either of them interfered with.

Translating it so that you can follow this: I don't want the job function interfered with. I am sure you wouldn't either. You might see both of them sticking around for another 4 years. No point in getting too upset.

Now if terrorists were to strike again the way they did in 2001, THAT would be worth getting upset about. This is small potatoes.

Fair enough. Now let me ask you this:

How do you know the person in the position is NOT interfering with how the position is supposed to handle things to begin with?

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

Janet Napolitano struck a deal between her Homeland Security and WalMart, where she periodically pops onto their tv monitors and encourages people to report any abnormal behavior to a manager or to security. That in and of itself isn't so bad, but she goes on to say that in doing so the person(s) listening/watching could "save countless lives."

Wait. The skunk said what???

 

[RETS]

Wait. The skunk said what???

Calmly told people in WalMart to report any and all abnormal behavior to a manager or security, and in doing so they could save countless lives.

 

[Assuredcw]

So how does this relate to Fast & Furious again?

 

[RETS]

So how does this relate to Fast & Furious again?

Her people- The people who answer to her during an investigation- Are currently investigating Holder and the whole F&F affair.

A woman who has been proven incompetent- Who is of questionable moral and ethical standards, and has a solid track record for faulty judgment- Is overseeing the investigation.

That is what it has to do with Fast & Furious.

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

Calmly told people in WalMart to report any and all abnormal behavior to a manager or security, and in doing so they could save countless lives.

Seriously.

I'm tempted to go there, buy fertilizer, and then talk about buying diesel fuel.

 

[Assuredcw]

Her people- The people who answer to her during an investigation- Are currently investigating Holder and the whole F&F affair.

A woman who has been proven incompetent- Who is of questionable moral and ethical standards, and has a solid track record for faulty judgment- Is overseeing the investigation.

That is what it has to do with Fast & Furious.

So everyone who has anything to do with protecting us from either terrorists or organized crime is incompetent?! Alrighty then...

Seems to me we would have some very obvious "feedback" on Ms. Napolitano's abilites, in particular, in the form of - wait for it - more incidences of domestic terrorism, as evidence of her incompetence.

But back to Holder, I am impressed with what he is choosing to hone in on right now, most particularly making lies you tell to website administrators a crime (which facilitated the killings on Craigslist). Here's a link for that, as well as a separate thread in case you wanted to weigh in on the cybercrime issue:

Lying on the Internet could soon be a federal crime | Digital Trends

And here's DaisyDay's thread on a similar story:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7609963/

 

[RETS]

So everyone who has anything to do with protecting us from either terrorists or organized crime is incompetent?! Alrighty then...

Uh, no. Only those who have PROVEN THEMSELVES TO BE. Dang lady, don't you read the news? Stay up on current events?

Seems to me we would have some very obvious "feedback" on Ms. Napolitano's abilites, in particular, in the form of - wait for it - more incidences of domestic terrorism, as evidence of her incompetence.

So now you are arguing from a hypothetical as opposed to proven fact? Well, let me just quote you:

Alrighty then...

But back to Holder, I am impressed with what he is choosing to hone in on right now, most particularly making lies you tell to website administrators a crime (which facilitated the killings on Craigslist). Here's a link for that, as well as a separate thread in case you wanted to weigh in on the cybercrime issue:

Lying on the Internet could soon be a federal crime | Digital Trends

Unbelievable. Are you sure you're not from some other country? You do realize there's this thing called freedom of speech, right? And privacy?

I'm all for making this a crime applicable ONLY in those events when a criminal is brought to justice. But making it a standalone verboten offense is insanity. You do realize that you would no longer be able to have a handle, right? Assured would have to lose her handle "Assured," and use her real name.

 

[Assuredcw]

The "making lying a crime" thing is not my idea, but I like it, I like it!

That's a separate thread, though. I edited my post above, with the link to the other thread.

 

[RETS]

The "making lying a crime" thing is not my idea, but I like it, I like it!

You like it now...

 

[Rion]

You like it now...

"So this is how liberty dies...with thunderous applause."