Obama's Watergate
Printed From: Tippmann Paintball
Category: News And Views
Forum Name: Thoughts and Opinions
Forum Description: Got something you need to say?
URL: http://www.tippmannsports.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=189654
Printed Date: 14 November 2025 at 8:22pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Obama's Watergate
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Subject: Obama's Watergate
Date Posted: 16 December 2011 at 12:44pm
|
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/dec/15/obamas-watergate-758295296/ - http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/dec/15/obamas-watergate-758295296/
When I hear someone say they will vote for Obama again, I think of the facts in this article...
"A year ago this week, U.S. Border Patrol Agent http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/brian-terry/ - Brian Terry was murdered. He died protecting his country from brutal Mexican gangsters. Two AK-47 assault rifles were found at his death site. We now know the horrifying truth: Agent http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/brian-terry/ - Terry was killed by weapons that were part of an illegal Obama administration operation to smuggle arms to the dangerous drug cartels. He was a victim of his own government. This is not only a major scandal; it is a high crime that potentially reaches all the way to the http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/white-house/ - White House , implicating senior officials. It is President Obama’s Watergate. Operation Fast and Furious was run by the http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/bureau-of-alcohol-tobacco-firearms-and-explosives/ - Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives ( http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/bureau-of-alcohol-tobacco-firearms-and-explosives/ - ATF ) and overseen by the http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/department-of-justice/ - Justice Department . It started under the leadership of Attorney General http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/eric-h-holder-jr/ - Eric H. Holder Jr. Fast and Furious enabled straw gun purchases from licensed dealers in Arizona, in which more than 2,000 weapons were smuggled to Mexican drug kingpins. ATF claims it was seeking to track the weapons as part of a larger crackdown on the growing violence in the Southwest. Instead, ATF effectively has armed murderous gangs. About 300 Mexicans have been killed by Fast and Furious weapons. More than 1,400 guns remain lost. Agent http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/brian-terry/ - Terry likely will not be the last U.S. casualty. http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/eric-h-holder-jr/ - Mr. Holder insists he was unaware of what took place until after media reports of the scandal appeared in early 2011. This is false. Such a vast operation only could have occurred with the full knowledge and consent of senior administration officials. Massive gun-running and smuggling is not carried out by low-level ATF bureaucrats unless there is authorization from the top. There is a systematic cover-up. Congressional Republicans, however, are beginning to shed light on the scandal. Led by http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/chuck-grassley/ - Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa and http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/darrell-issa/ - Rep. Darrell Issa of California, a congressional probe is exposing the http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/department-of-justice/ - Justice Department ’s rampant criminality and deliberate stonewalling. Assistant Attorney General http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/lanny-a-breuer/ - Lanny A. Breuer , who heads the http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/united-states-department-of-justice/ - department ’s criminal division, helped craft a February letter to http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/congress/ - Congress that denied ATF had ever walked guns into http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/mexico/ - Mexico . Yet, under pressure from congressional investigators, the http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/united-states-department-of-justice/ - department later admitted that http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/lanny-a-breuer/ - Mr. Breuer knew about ATF gun-smuggling as far back as April 2010. In other words, http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/lanny-a-breuer/ - Mr. Breuer has been misleading http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/congress/ - Congress . He should resign - or be fired. Instead, http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/eric-h-holder-jr/ - Mr. Holder tenaciously insists that http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/lanny-a-breuer/ - Mr. Breuer will keep his job. He needs to keep his friends close and potential witnesses even closer. Another example is former acting http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/atf/ - ATF Director http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/kenneth-melson/ - Kenneth Melson . Internal documents show http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/kenneth-melson/ - Mr. Melson directly oversaw Fast and Furious, including monitoring numerous straw purchases of AK-47s. He has admitted to congressional investigators that he, along with high-ranking ATF leaders, reassigned every “manager involved in Fast and Furious” after the scandal surfaced on Capitol Hill and in the press. http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/kenneth-melson/ - Mr. Melson said he was ordered by senior Justice officials to be silent regarding the reassignments. Hence, ATF managers who possess intimate and damaging information - especially on the role of the http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/department-of-justice/ - Justice Department - essentially have been promoted to cushy bureaucratic jobs. Their silence has been bought, their complicity swept under the rug. http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/kenneth-melson/ - Mr. Melson has been transferred to Justice’s main office, where he serves as a “senior adviser” on forensic science in the http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/united-states-department-of-justice/ - department ’s Office of Legal Policy. Rather than being punished, http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/kenneth-melson/ - Mr. Melson has been rewarded for his incompetence and criminal negligence. http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/eric-h-holder-jr/ - Mr. Holder and his aides have given misleading, false and contradictory testimony on Capitol Hill. Perjury, obstruction of justice and abuse of power - these are high crimes and misdemeanors. http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/eric-h-holder-jr/ - Mr. Holder should be impeached. Like most liberals, he is playing the victim card, claiming http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/darrell-issa/ - Mr. Issa is a modern-day Joseph McCarthy conducting a judicial witch hunt. Regardless of this petty smear, http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/eric-h-holder-jr/ - Mr. Holder must be held responsible and accountable - not only for the botched operation, but for his flagrant attempts to deflect blame from the administration. http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/eric-h-holder-jr/ - Mr. Holder is a shameless careerist and a ruthless Beltway operative. For years, his out-of-control http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/department-of-justice/ - Justice Department has violated the fundamental principle of our democracy, the rule of law. He has refused to prosecute members of the New Black Panthers for blatant voter intimidation that took place in the 2008 election. Career Justice lawyers have confessed publicly that http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/eric-h-holder-jr/ - Mr. Holder will not pursue cases in which the perpetrators are black and the victims white. States such as Arizona and Alabama are being sued for simply attempting to enforce federal immigration laws. http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/eric-h-holder-jr/ - Mr. Holder also opposes voter identification cards, thereby enabling fraud and vote-stealing at the ballot box. What else can we expect from one who, during the Clinton administration, helped pardon notorious tax cheat Marc Rich and Puerto Rican terrorists? http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/eric-h-holder-jr/ - Mr. Holder clearly knew about Fast and Furious and did nothing to stop it. This is because the administration wanted to use the excuse of increased violence on the border and weapons-smuggling into http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/mexico/ - Mexico to justify tighter gun-control legislation. http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/eric-h-holder-jr/ - Mr. Holder is fighting ferociously to prevent important internal Justice documents from falling into the hands of congressional investigators. If the full nature of his involvement is discovered, the Obama presidency will be in peril. Fast and Furious is even worse than Watergate for one simple reason: No one died because of President Nixon’s political dirty tricks and abuse of government power. But http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/brian-terry/ - Brian Terry is dead; and there are still 1,500 missing guns threatening still more lives. What did Mr. Obama know? Massive gun-smuggling by the U.S. government into a foreign country does not happen without the explicit knowledge and approval of leading administration officials. It’s too big, too risky and too costly. http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/eric-h-holder-jr/ - Mr. Holder may not be protecting just himself and his cronies. Is he protecting the president?" ------------- They tremble at my name... 
|
Replies:
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 16 December 2011 at 12:53pm
|
Wasnt this subject already covered in 6 pages + in this thread? http://www.tippmann.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=188554 - http://www.tippmann.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=188554 Or did you start to get shut down in that one too? ------------- "When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter. |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 16 December 2011 at 12:56pm
I feel like this is a key bit if information to bury in the bottom graph. The answer = we don't really know. And it might be prudent to reserve the Watergate tag until we know more about what Obama indeed knew about the operation.
|
FreeEnterprise wrote:Posted By: Kayback
Date Posted: 16 December 2011 at 1:13pm
|
WOW! This was an eye opener. I will never vote for Obama!
Thank you for freeing me FE! KBK ------------- Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo. H = 2 |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 16 December 2011 at 1:21pm
|
The more I think about the wording here, the more I think about this: The terminology itself is flawed. It's an incredibly flawed analogy, to compare this situation to Watergate, if only by examining the end-game and intentions of both situations. If you look at Fast & Furious, the horridly flawed operation that it was, what was the end-game, if everything would have been executed correctly? It was to allow the sale of firearms to Mexican drug cartels in order to capture and prosecute the offenders later. The intentions, from the initiation of the operation, appear to be to bust dangerous drug traffickers. Granted, it went horribly south (No pun intended), someone didn't execute something correctly, and you have someone dead because of it. This is not a defense of the thing, simply an examination. Now, if you look at Watergate, the end-game was for Richard Nixon to know what the competing political party was planning on doing and saying about him during the elections. The intentions, from the beginning (And based on Nixon's prior behavior), were based in personal paranoia and the desire to win another election. Nixon approved people breaking into the Democratic offices to steal personal information. If executed correctly (Which it absolutely wasn't), Fast & Furious leads to the arrest of dozens of Mexican drug cartel members. If executed correctly, Watergate is still one of the most egregious abuses of political power in the history of the U.S. This isn't in defense of Fast & Furious, in the least. But it does a disservice to the historical potency of Watergate to even compare F&F to it. |
Posted By: Rofl_Mao
Date Posted: 16 December 2011 at 1:32pm
| Jeez, its like watching The Good Shepherd. He sees little "code" messages in news articles and thinks its spies trying to attack the country. |
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 16 December 2011 at 1:41pm
Fixed that for ya. |
Posted By: mbro
Date Posted: 16 December 2011 at 1:42pm
------------- 
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos. |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 16 December 2011 at 1:48pm
| I'm pretty sure you guys are thinking of Gladiator. |
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 16 December 2011 at 3:28pm
That in itself is the differance between leadership and management. President Harry Truman (D): "The Buck stops HERE." President Barrak Obama (D): "What Buck?" As the Head of Government and Commander and Chief by the definition of LEADERSHIP you are ultimately responsible for all actions of those under your 'command'. Now under the definition of Management, if you can delegate blame, and then claim no knowledge, you are clear of any responsibility. ------------- 
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 16 December 2011 at 3:37pm
It was an interesting PR campaign for Truman, but pretty much every president since we've had presidents has fallen under the idea of:
Plausible deniablity has existed forever. Obama is no exception.
|
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 16 December 2011 at 3:41pm
|
Nuremburg pretty well made that concept pretty clear. The Leadership Score for Obama and any current Republican candidate is '0'. Don't trust the lot of em.
Again a lessor of two evils election, unfortuanately....I will vote ABO on principle. -------------
|
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 16 December 2011 at 3:44pm
|
Oh and a question, did not the typewriter and media actually become a favored tool of the 'facist'? The campaigns of Mussolini as well as Hitler depended on print media to support the cause. And the media kinda followed along hesitant, but more than willing. -------------
|
Posted By: impulse418
Date Posted: 16 December 2011 at 3:47pm
You bought that? |
Posted By: Rofl_Mao
Date Posted: 16 December 2011 at 3:49pm
Same thing |
Posted By: mbro
Date Posted: 16 December 2011 at 3:53pm
-------------
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos. |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 16 December 2011 at 3:53pm
It didn't really, not for American politics. If that was indeed the case, Reagan would have been impeached (And if you're going for the direct Nuremberg connection, tried in court) concerning the Iran-Contra scandal.
|
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 16 December 2011 at 4:08pm
|
"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results" ....an appropriate quotation for this thread on innumerable levels. ------------- ? |
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 16 December 2011 at 4:10pm
|
A comparison on how the Allies to include America charged Germans for the same actions the Allied Commands used in thier methods on the war. How the Allies legal as well as government entities ignored thier own responsibilities, to prosecute others for what they also were guilty of under the charges specified against German Military and Civilian Leaders. (to a point)
Not one German 'Leader' actually took responsibility for the actions of thier subordinates. Like they did not know what was actually happening. -------------
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 16 December 2011 at 4:11pm
The amount of times you can replace"insanity" and "American politics" in quotes about either topic is astounding.
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 16 December 2011 at 4:21pm
Not to change too much from the topic at hand, but I can address this. I comes along with my change in interest during the course of the past year from structured journalism to communication in general - particularly the influence of the technical progression of communication machines and how it relates to society. The statement (Borrowed from Woody Guthrie) matched with a communication machine -- the typewriter -- is more of the point I was trying to make, not really anything to do with the media. It's more to do with the ability to democratize information and voices. It happened with the printing press and it's happened with the Internet, and everything between. Over time, the ability to mass-produce and distribute a message has done more to topple oppression, I think, than bullets could ever do. |
Posted By: impulse418
Date Posted: 16 December 2011 at 4:55pm
Sounds like a Gene Sharp quote. |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 16 December 2011 at 5:04pm
I'll take that as a compliment.
|
Posted By: impulse418
Date Posted: 16 December 2011 at 5:13pm
| It is a compliment. |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 16 December 2011 at 5:13pm
|
Posted By: Kayback
Date Posted: 16 December 2011 at 5:47pm
|
Do you two need a room?
KBK ------------- Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo. H = 2 |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 16 December 2011 at 6:26pm
| Room? No, a blanket spread out under the starry skys on a crisp Arizona evening. |
Posted By: Lightningbolt
Date Posted: 16 December 2011 at 6:33pm
|
And Obama in a g-string with 5,000 semi's full of shovels and dodge balls |
Posted By: impulse418
Date Posted: 16 December 2011 at 6:42pm
Best sunsets in the country. |
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 19 December 2011 at 11:37am
|
Holder pulls the race card...
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/18/us/politics/under-partisan-fire-eric-holder-soldiers-on.html?pagewanted=all - http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/18/us/politics/under-partisan-fire-eric-holder-soldiers-on.html?pagewanted=all
------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: evillepaintball
Date Posted: 19 December 2011 at 11:50am
|
I hate it when people pull cards. Don't you, FE? ------------- 
|
Posted By: Gatyr
Date Posted: 19 December 2011 at 2:07pm
Actually, Hitler was a huge advocate of the word of mouth in order to further his cause. He always thought literature was an inefficient way of spreading ideas and getting them to hold in the intended audience. ------------- 
|
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 19 December 2011 at 3:53pm
Don't forget film. Hitler LOVED him some good old fashioned propaganda thinly veiled as a movie. He was, in general, a fan of almost all of the arts with the exception of literature. While he authored quite a few books himself, he was not a fan of other people's works regardless of subject matter. |
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 19 December 2011 at 5:19pm
Persecutin'. ------------- 
|
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 20 December 2011 at 8:03am
Interesting facts the media and liberal democrats (oh wait, I'm repeating myself) are ignoring when they promote ObamAA++...
------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 20 December 2011 at 8:43am
Seriously? You're going to quote The Blaze? For those not in the know, theblaze.com was founded by Glenn Beck. You know, the guy who said the following comparing the victims of the Norway shootings to Hitler Youth: "There was a shooting at a political camp which sounds a little like, you know, the Hitler Youth or whatever, you know what I mean. Who does a camp for kids that's all about politics? Disturbing." Or this about a whole sect of Judaism: "Reform Rabbis are generally political in nature. It's almost like radicalized Islam in a way where it's less about religion than it is about politics." Seriously? It's like you aren't even trying anymore FE. |
Posted By: Lightningbolt
Date Posted: 20 December 2011 at 8:48am
Are you suggesting that this differentiated him from the rest of the World somehow? |
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 20 December 2011 at 8:58am
|
K, so Tallen doesn't like glenn beck... good to know... But, each fact has the associated news article that covered said fact... Which none of them are quoting Glenn Beck, course you could click the hyperlinks to see that, but I guess it is just easier to ignore it, because I pulled it from the blaze, right?... That was pretty weak Tallen, I expect more from you. ------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: evillepaintball
Date Posted: 20 December 2011 at 10:09am
This is an OUTRAGE! What in the hell are these 30 million newborns-11 year olds doing with their time?! Are they too sissified to work a 14 hour shift in the saw mill? back in my day, this would never have been allowed. Back when kids were MEN!
It's funny that this is a complaint coming from the same group that was ranting andraving about how great privatized healthcare is and that our system doesn't need fixing.
-------------
|
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 20 December 2011 at 10:21am
|
They weren't talking about adding children necessarily, but the increase in the census numbers (illegals? legals, and terrrrorists, as well as children). and medicare, and medicade have been around for a long time, and are no way "privatized" healthcare.We have been on the european march towards socialized medicine for decades. And one look at Europe tells us that it doesn't work fiscally...
But, lets keep doing the same thing and hope for change! Our government spent almost $2.5 billion every single day this year...
------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 20 December 2011 at 10:57am
|
The real argument here isn't the individual points themselves, I'm sure most of them are true. It's how does any of that tie directly to Obama? Don't forget the Republicans had 8 years to create the utopia many of them believe will exist in the absence of Obama, and yet, here we are. It's my belief that most of the issues with this economy are beyond the partisan squabbles of the last 11 years or so. I think they're deep rooted in several institutions that failed us in sheer foresight and left us with a mess that it's going to take years if not decades to fix. Any and all political bickering is doing nothing but diverting attention from the hopelessness of that fact. Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have produced answers, and in fact really the struggle is over whose Band-Aid will cover the most of the wound. -------------
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 20 December 2011 at 11:09am
They don't. And, interestingly enough, a lot of them tend to point to the need for more social-democratic policies, like the issues with medical costs. Also, I'm confused about what the Waltons one has to do with anything. I also don't know why I'm looking for sense in a FWD:FWD:FWD: from Blaze.
|
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 20 December 2011 at 12:15pm
| double post. |
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 20 December 2011 at 12:22pm
Yep, and I bet that they spent every single penny of it on social programs. No new jet fighters, no new weapons, no defense R&D, no infrastructure repairs, let alone paying the 2,690,000 full-time Federal employees out there. Yep, they spent it all on Geritol and colonoscopies alright! |
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 21 December 2011 at 9:19am
|
You guys have brought up good points... But, the focus needs to be on selecting politicians not by their political party, but if they are small government people or not. What is their core beliefs. On one hand you have liberals who pretend to be fiscally conservative, but are clearly lying. As their actions when they ran everything was to spend without ever even passing a budget (still haven't btw). Then you have typical republicans who are just the same as the liberals... and all they care about is lining their pockets, and giving "government" money to their voters. Then you have the people actually trying to fix things (guys like Paul Ryan). Who want to CHANGE the programs that clearly don't work. But, the media and the other politicians don't want their apple cart rocked. And yet, many will still vote for an obama again, even though he is a horrible leader and can't stop the spending (he has actually increased it more than any president in history). His healthcare plan that he forced through with zero republican support or input has actually been a massive cost increase, as the cost savings built into it were all vapor, and the biggest one (CLASS) was actually removed as it wouldn't work. So they are accepting that they lied and the cost will in fact go way up... Like they are... Energy costs keep skyrocketing, because of the government picking winners and losers, and the taxpayer gets saddled with the costs. It is frustrating that people who are thinking about starting businesses don't because of the massive amount of regulation and expense from the government. Our country is NOT business friendly, and that has consequences on all of us, as businesses go to places where they are treated right. This president is all about class warfare. Oh and Holder is lying yet again... He is trying to say he didn't pull the race card... http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-the-record/2011/12/20/did-attorney-general-eric-holder-play-race-card-his-critics Lets review what he said. In an interview published yesterday, Attorney General Holder talked about his critics. Mr. Holder said he believed the more extreme segment were motivated by animus against Mr. Obama and that he served as a stand in for him. "This is a way to get at president because of the way I can be identified with him," he said, "both due to the nature of our relationship and, you know, the fact that we're both African-American." Here is the new statement from the justice department on his comments. "That is a complete distortion of the attorney general's comment. His comments both in the article and elsewhere made clear that he believes much of the criticism is launched against him are unfortunately the typical Washington gotcha game. A simple reading of those comments show he was referring to how he is identified with the president given their close relationship and all they share in common including their ideology. The position of the attorney general has been a target for partisan attacks, and given the critical work that this attorney general he is doing at the Department of Justice, it's no surprise that some are engaging in such tactics. His critics rightly view the attorney general is a progressive force, and given our current political environment, there will those who use any opportunity to score political points." Do any of you support Holder after all of this?
------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: High Voltage
Date Posted: 21 December 2011 at 9:55am
|
I don't think you understand what small government means. If you do, then you seem to be using it in a very selective manner. ------------- 
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 21 December 2011 at 10:06am
| It's like a shotgun blast formed from the collective mold of e-mail forwards. |
Posted By: Gatyr
Date Posted: 21 December 2011 at 10:13am
This is true, but I'm wondering if you have in mind the massive amounts of oil subsidies when you say that, or if you are trying only to insinuate that alternative fuel sources are the devil. -------------
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 21 December 2011 at 10:14am
I somehow missed this gem while posting. I'm honestly curious as to how you come to this conclusion. Any part of it, honestly. How have we been on the "march toward socialized medicine" for decades, exactly? We've had exactly one quasi-reform bill pass, and that was two years ago. And that bill, as we've discussed, is about the farthest thing from socialism as you can get. It retains private company ownership, and it mandates purchase and inclusion of service from these private corporations, while the medical side of it - doctors - remain completely private. It maintains the capitalistic market of health care in every form. I'm also not sure, exactly, how Europe is proof that a legitimate socialized system doesn't work? |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 21 December 2011 at 10:16am
It's always funny for me to spot the phrases that FE uses but doesn't properly understand how to use. Like talking about the government "picking winners and losers" while bemoaning energy costs. |
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 21 December 2011 at 10:20am
I agree with the first half of your point, but the second half is far too vague a term to keep using in serious political discussions. If you mean candidates that seek to trim government spending, absolutely. But simply saying we want smaller government opens the doors to all kinds of kooks.
Again, agreed. Though I see Republicans as less willing to give government money to voters, and more easily bought out by corporate influence. Though in essence you are correct, they both stem in the same basic two sided political logic of pretending to be for the people when in reality pursuing self interests.
Can't comment with any level of intelligence on this, I barely even know wh Paul Ryan is. Normally I'd make an effort to Google some info up at this junction, but I'm in the middle of something 
Also true.
I'm gonna go ahead and re throw out something I've said over and over on this forum-the race card is just one of a whole deck people with poor argumentative skills are employing. I could pick almost any politician and find a race card, a religion card, a family card, a right to privacy card...really, it's just a sly way of throwing out a red herring, maybe with a little ad hominem mixed in for extra flavor. As far as whether or not I support Holder, no way to answer that question.
-------------
|
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 21 December 2011 at 2:29pm
that is an entirely different discussion with tons of information that can be discussed. I come from a family of doctors (not me mind you...) But, all I heard growing up was how medicare would destroy the doctor patient system... And today, you have doctors that are forced to take way less for a procedure based on some government person deciding that medicare will only pay THIS much, even though the test costs more... So that person gets it for less, and everyone else pays the additional costs, basically that is why prices keep going up, government pays less for services and the "rich" pay more. At its most basic concept that is socialism. Look at Europe, (or even Canada) where people come to the US to get treatment because their system (the model that is used for much of liberals arguments about medicine and the US) doesn't work well, and people need treatment not lines and wait times... Plus look at all the treatments they don't cover now, they expect you to just go in a corner and die. And the US is following in their footsteps as the breast cancer drug that just got dropped because it "didn't work well" (actually it got dropped because of the cost...) I don't have the silver bullet answer to fix everything, but if you get the government out of it, I know the costs would go way down... Course with all the corruption in our world today... Some people would pay the price with their lives, as some doctors are corrupt... But, I do know that putting the government MORE in charge is just a practice in futility, as they haven't met a single deadline for implementation of Obamacare... Typical government inability to perform, and yet the answer is to give them MORE control over 1/5 of our economy... 90 congressmen have now given a "no confidence" vote for Holder... http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/20/now-90-congressmen-have-no-confidence-in-holder-or-believe-he-should-quit/ Interesting how that isn't a news story on the nightly news, huh... ------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 21 December 2011 at 2:56pm
How do you define getting out of it? What government regulations do you feel are inhibiting financial progress in the health sector? Just out of curiosity. I spent a little bit working with collections on hospital bills, so I have some (not really what I'd call in depth or anything) experience with billing. -------------
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 21 December 2011 at 3:03pm
While correct, it's extraordinarily silly to point to this as "socialism." Private insurance companies operate in the exact same way. Private insurance companies are not paying the full cost of anything they are billed from the medical provider. When the insurance company gets the bill, they either reduce the costs of procedures through an existing contract with the provider, or they challenge the posted cost of the individual procedure until the medical provider agrees. Same thing with a private, uninsured citizen. If you go to this hospital while uninsured and rack up a $100,000 bill, you'll almost never have to pay a $100,000 bill. You end up spending a month negotiating the price down to something reasonable, after proving that you have no means to pay $100,000 worth of medical bills. It's why hospitals infamously charge $65 for two aspirin — they know that most people don't actually pay that finalized amount. Perhaps Strato can help confirm this.
This happens with everyone for everything medical. Someone with a top-of-the-line private insurance is most likely paying less per-item than someone with bottom-tier discount private insurance. Again, not exactly socialism. At all. It's the private market.
Two silly things about this: 1) Unless you support single-payer health care, or support hospitals being able to turn away those who cannot afford treatment, you're always going to be paying for other people's health care. 2) If you have private health insurance, which I imagine you do, you're already paying for someone else's additional health care costs.
This could not be further from the truth.
It's apparent that you understand "socialism" about as well as you understand "capitalism."
The amount of people who come to the U.S. for healthcare is unbelievably low given the total amount of healthcare use in the country. Not only that, but the same thing is happening in reverse: Americans are going to Canada to get treatment that would bankrupt them in the U.S. Not only that, but the Canadian government - the ones operating this socialized system - pays for visits to U.S. specialistis.
There is more "wait time." It's negligible in almost all situations, and treated by severity of problem. And, interestingly enough, people don't go bankrupt because of their medical treatment. As another point here, you act as if waits don't exist in the U.S. I recently had a bit of a medical issue and had to wait about three weeks to get an appointment with the appropriate specialist — and that was only after two (Granted, one was accidental) emergency room visits.
And this is different than private health insurance how exactly?
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/19/business/fda-revokes-approval-of-avastin-as-breast-cancer-drug.html - Blatantly incorrect , or an outright lie on your behalf. The FDA - not Medicare - is revoking approval for the drug because they cannot show any results for the drug. They've conducted numerous tests and cannot find any statistical significance for the treatment of breast tumors. All they can find is increased side-effect symptoms with extended use. The production company also has the ability to appeal and reapply for approval later if they can provide results from more/different testing. Also, as the article states: "Federal officials said on Friday that http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/medicare/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier - Medicare would still provide coverage for the drug’s use in breast cancer, though the government plans to “monitor the issue and evaluate coverage options.”
History and economics are showing otherwise. |
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 21 December 2011 at 3:19pm
|
Well, then Whale, what is the solution, more government? Does it bother you that the government costs per year never stay the same, they always increase? Does it bother you that everything they touch goes way up in costs even though they take the lowest bid whenever it goes out for bid? The system as it is, is completely corrupt, the only ones who benefit are the ones that run the system (notice NONE of them are on the Obamacare plan... and weird how they can use their influence to manipulate businesses while getting in the IPO's that you and I could only dream of getting...) Anyway, like I said, this is a whole different discussion. From Obama's watergate... CNN is now asking questions... ------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 21 December 2011 at 3:24pm
I believe we are plenty capable of forming and executing a proper socialized healthcare system.
No. Because the cost of goods and services go up. That's how markets work. Are you bothered that the cost of a new car goes up every year?
No. Because the things the government "touches" tend to be public goods and services — things that make us a viable first-world country. And, frankly, some things should not be left up to the lowest bidder. |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 21 December 2011 at 3:25pm
|
You really should address this:
|
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 21 December 2011 at 3:30pm
As far as negotiating bills, we knocked 30% off of self pay if they were paid at once. That's ER bill mind you, I have no idea where the variations start in elective / outpatient procedures.
Medical insurance has a couple of things working against it with the average person- A:) It's hard to understand coverage for alot of people. This is partially the fact the geneal public is surprisingly out of the loop when it comes to insurance terminology, and partially because the more cut rate companies will purposely mislead people on how their policies work. The worst were those discount cards...talk about making my job a nightmare. B:) They simply don't read their policy plans. They assume that because they're paying so much into it, when the time comes they just present the card and walk through the line. That said, healthcare is a whole myriad of issues, and I have no constructive response to any of them. FE is correct in that government interference pays a part in the outrageous hospital prices, at least from an emergency perspective. But that interference is also what keeps people from dying in the lobby. Working in three hospitals, the general problem I saw was a combination of federal law and internal policies with the hospital. Take EMTALA. According to EMTALA, and various internal / federal regulations, a hospital must at least triage and make a determination regarding a patient's well being before discharging them. If emergency treatment is required, the hospital is obligated to give life saving measures. So all this talk about Americans dying in the streets? Yeah, it happens, but it's illegal. There are very strict federal guidelines on how a patient is treated in an ER enviroment. So now you're obligated to see everyone, regardless of complaint. Toothaches? They can be a precursor to a heart attack, or they can be the product of too much meth. Chest pains? You name it. In fact, you name a symptom, there can be a fatal cause behind it. To me, the obvious solution to this is to make a determination at the triage level as to a patient's emergency status. This is where internal conflicts come in. The hospitals would never agree on an actual triage level assessment program beyond the nurse taking your vitals and sending you to a room. So if someone comes in with a toothache, their vitals check out, they're fine, they're still sent to a room and they still incur a doctor's bill. Of course, most of our ER docs were actually contracted with the hospital and not direct employees of it. So alot of them had little to no discretion in treating patients-they saw anything and everything, prescribed it medicine, and in general I found them to be ignorant of the billing process and the actual expense of the treatments provided. What you have is a perfect combination of regulation, both internal and federal, that leads to an ER becoming a no pay health clinic. We can't deny treatment based upon finances unless we can prove that the condition is purely nonthreatening, and the doctors almost always refused to make that call. We were diagnosing and prescribing medicine for STD's, for instance. So the ER is flooded, they're having to increase staff, they need more clerical staff (me) to handle the various types of insurance for the increased patient load, and don't even start on the sheer number of nurses an ER needs to keep around that it wouldn't if it weren't forced to see unsick peoples. Is there a fix for this? I don't see one. But it makes up a large reason as to why healthcare is what it is in this country, and ER abuse is a big motivator behind socialized medicine. The general idea is that you're already paying for peopel to have preventative care, you're just paying for it via the ER. On a good month, we were only 30% in the hole on our billing. Sometimes, it was 80%. On average it was estimated that we collected the $150 ER fee and nothing else..so all those 5,10, and 15K bills you hear about? Nobody pays them. Very, very few bills were paid in full, and usually they were employers who wanted to pay and not bill insurance. Again though, there's really no fixing this problem, and this is just one among a million details that has created the health care crisis we see. That's not even going into Medicaid / Medicare, scamming among private insurances (there was a case where doctors were billing Aetna 30K a pop for MRI's until Aetna finally spotted the scam), etc etc. -------------
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 21 December 2011 at 3:41pm
I've heard - never really tested - that if you pay with cash you tend to get a pretty decent discount.
From my recent medical issues, I can confirm that this was a royal pain in the ass. The hospital I went to was covered by my insurance - the doctor they had working that saw me was not. So my ER visit was relatively low co-pay, but I had to pay a ton of "out of network" fees for the doctor that saw me while I was in the ER (Even though he stopped in like an Applebees managers stops by your table). I (And by that I mean my insurance, but I asked for an itemized bill for kicks) also payed about $88 for two 10mg Percocet. I've also had to use the ER for routine care before — I made a thread about it back when I was in Ohio. But thanks for the post. That was super informative
 . |
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 21 December 2011 at 4:02pm
So the first trials that were used for the decision to sell the drug showed a considerable difference to the next trials where A DIFFERENT DRUG was partnered with Avastin... You don't notice that key bit of information? That was the issue all along, they used different drugs for the follow up trials, so of course they got different results, it wasn't the same testing! An initial clinical trial that was the basis for the provisional approval showed that Avastin, combined with the drug paclitaxel, which is also known by the brand name Taxol, delayed the progression of disease by about five and a half months, compared to use of paclitaxel alone. But in subsequent studies, in which Avastin was combined with different http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/chemotherapy/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier - chemotherapy drugs, http://health.nytimes.com/health/guides/disease/tumor/overview.html?inline=nyt-classifier - tumor growth was delayed by one to three months. Avastin did not prolong lives at all, nor did it improve quality of life. Many breast cancer specialists say that Avastin does appear to work very well for some patients, and some advocates have said the drug should be left on the market for the sake of those patients. But Dr. Hamburg said there was no way to determine in advance who those patients were, so many women would use the drug. “The evidence does not justify broad exposure to the risks of this drug,” she wrote. So who is spinning the truth? I've read a ton on this drug and the way it has been "pulled" from the market by our government as I have a friend who used it successfully, prolonging her life for a year... A year she wouldn't have had without it. She got to see her daughter married... I think that was worth the $88,000 it cost. Other people who used that drug are now cancer free. That is a fact, and the FDA banned it anyway... ------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 21 December 2011 at 4:31pm
Some key points that seem to be missing from your approach to this:
Also, about the drug itself, it's not a cure-all anti-cancer miracle drug. It's an angiogensis inhibitor taken with other anti-cancer medications to help control the spread and regrowth of cancerous areas.
It does not appear that this is correct. Because, if you did indeed do a lot of reading on this subject, you wouldn't say something as dull as:
Avastin has not been "pulled" from the market in any way, shape or form. At all. Not even close. We're now up to two lies in this conversation. It's still highly prescribed for kidney cancer and colon cancer. It's still being covered by Medicare. The revoking of FDA approval was ONLY for the use of treating breast cancer. And, even then, doctors are still absolutely able to prescribe Avastin to breast cancer patients — The only issue is that private health insurance companies are less likely to approve coverage of the drug for breast cancer patients. What the FDA has done is the equivalent of removing an endorsement. It's not a ban. At all. Still though — your original statement reamins blatantly false. You stated:
Which remains absolutely incorrect. It had its FDA approval revoked because four post-approval studies could not find anything conclusive in actually helping patients. Do you have any sort of evidence to show that this is some kind of money-driven conspiracy, especially seeing as Medicare is still covering the drug? Or will you correct yourself? |
Posted By: rednekk98
Date Posted: 21 December 2011 at 5:42pm
|
But if the FDA "endorsed" the drug, wouldn't they be "picking winners and losers"? If it got dropped "because of the cost"isn't that letting the free market decide? I fail to see why you of all people have a problem with that. |
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 22 December 2011 at 7:57am
|
This is a perfect example of liberalism vs logic. Here we have a breast cancer treatment that clearly has success of 5 1/2 months of additional life. (remember the medical oath, of DO NO HARM). Avastin, combined with the drug paclitaxel is the original study, that the FDA approved. They even said it prolonged life in breast cancer patients when they approved it based on the study done. Which added 5 1/2 months on average to the life of the patients. So mathematically, lets write down the formula... A+P = 5 1/2 months of life Then they did some other studies, that didn't use A+P =5 1/2 months instead they tried different drug combinations. (cancer is treated with combinations of drugs) They did A+B=0 which equaled no change... Then they did A+C=0 which equaled no change... Then they did A+D=0 again equaled no change... Therefore in liberal logic land you throw out the success of A+P = 5 1/2 months for breast cancer survival. because A+B and A+C and A+D yielded no change... Yup, that makes sense! Total breakdown of logic, typical... And yet whale again calls me a liar, when the obvious nature of his fail is obvious... Now I didn't make up that fact that the decision to stop using Avastin was because of cost... http://www.nyhealthinsurer.com/articles/coverage-for-avastin "One of the more expensive pharmaceutical medications, Avastin, was under consideration for being discontinued. Under The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, this particular medication was considered above the cost line. This is a special medication for all patients who are in the last stages of breast cancer. The health insurance providers were to remove Avastin from their internal list of acceptable medication because of the high cost and because of a few of the predominant side effects such as the following." Clearly that shows that because of the cost, Obamacare didn't want that medication to be used... As Obama himself said, why spend so much on someone who is going to die anyway... Just take a pain pill! (clearly his point is to die already, if you are a woman, you aren't worth the cost to get you an additional 5 1/2 months of life!) So if you have breast cancer, and you want to live a few extra months, since the FDA dropped it, and your insurance followed them, and doesn't cover it anymore, wouldn't that mean it was "banned" to you? You can no longer get it, and you will now die faster than if you could get it... The free market doesn't decide on a drug when the FDA stops approval for it in ONE type of cancer, yet keeps it for other "less common" cancers because of its success! (strange breast cancer rates are very high compared to other cancers). It was clearly a "cost saving" decision from Obamacare and an example of rationing, proving my point. Now that I proved you wrong, are you going to apologize for calling me a liar? How exactly is rationing by the government our ability to get a product "free market"? It sure looks like the government telling everyone, it is OK to stop saving 5 1/2 months of your life, because we can save some money by "dropping" it and blame the FDA on the decision. (weird as tons of insurance companies now don't pay for Avastin for breast cancer... very strange... ) Oh, and back on topic... Another Justice department person busted for lying under oath. Shocking, don't worry, it will be ignored, and no one will lose their jobs. because they can... http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-justice-department-condones-perjury/ http://biggovernment.com/jcadams/2011/12/22/confessions-of-perjury-inside-doj/ ------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: High Voltage
Date Posted: 22 December 2011 at 9:21am
|
Your misunderstanding of medical science is scary, FE. -------------
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 22 December 2011 at 11:00am
The "clearly" part here is simply not true. The initial test suggested that the time of life extension could be about five months through a sample study, based on their results. The initial tests earned them the preliminary approval. Subsequent tests could not show an aggregate, significant improvement of quality of life. If the results were "clear" they would have been able easily replicate the results, including the initial results with Taxol, even with additional complimentary drugs. The FDA cannot, and should not, approve a drug because of a single preliminary test with a single complementary drug, especially because of the other variables that could have been occurring in the preliminary sample.
Let's get some things clarified here. 1) The FDA gave the drug, when used for breast cancer, a preliminary approval, as it was already being used in other cancer cases, until further tests could be done. 2) The way science works, the way this sort of drug testing works, is through repetition and diversity. You cannot simply test the drug once under one combination once and give it approval. There are a number of reasons for this. Mainly, not everyone can be given Taxol. Not everyone's cancer warrants the use of Taxol. Like I said, the FDA simply cannot approve a drug because it might work under some certain conditions with one drug in one non-replicated study, especially when the side effects are such that it could cause harm to the actual anti-cancer medications if exposure is prolonged.
You're attempted logic equations are simply not how extremely powerful and potentially dangerous medications are tested. There is a reason the threshold of significance level when testing these types of medications, and any medication really, is so extremely high. Medications are not tested, or approved, under such light conditions.
Yes, you very much did. What, pray tell, does one private insurance company's rantings about "looming universal healthcare" have to do, at all, with the FDA? A ranting that, funny enough, never mentions the failure of any of the tests after the preliminary approval to find any meaningful extension of life or improvement of patient quality.
It's interesting that you chose not to list the "few" side effects. This was a major part of their decision to revoke the approval for Avastin. Simply put, the success of the drug has to outweigh the side effects in a lasting way. The side effects — which the four studies showed increase with prolonged exposure to the drug — are:
This was not aspirin. This was a seriously heavy injected medication with very serious side effects. The FDA's decision, based on the lack of significant improvement in four followup studies, was weighed by the exposure of the patient — who is potentially already in a state of bodily duress both from cancer and from the chemotherapy and anti-growth drugs they may also be taking. It would be irresponsible to expose a patient to those side effects when a useful outcome of the drug cannot be determined.
No. That's not what banned means. Banned means the FDA decides the drug is potentially dangerous and orders the product out of the medical closets of clinics and hospitals. Banned is when the FDA orders the drug to be no-longer prescribed for any reason. Banned means the drug is no longer legal to prescribe. Banned means the FDA pays for PSAs to warn of the danger of the dug and potentially coerces the company itself into airing commercials explaining the need to immediately stop taking the drug. Avastin has not, in any way, shape, or form, been banned. That continues to be a lie told by you in this thread. Avastin can still be prescribed for breast cancer. But, without FDA approval, most insurance companies will not cover it. Now, your direction of anger here should be to the insurance companies, not to the FDA.
You absolutely can get it. Tallying everything up, we're now at three lies in this conversation. If you:
But. What? If this is the case, why exactly was Avastin so popular and prescribed so often before it had preliminary approval, but simply for kidney, colon and prostate cancers? Not all cancer is equal. "Cancer" isn't even a disease. It's a type of disease, like a category. Kidney cancer, for example, is fundamentally different than breast cancer. Avastin is an angiogenesis inhibitor. It works by blocking new blood vessels from growing. It's not a chemotherapy drug. It is used in complimentary fashion with anti-cancer medications to help prevent the spread of hurt areas. That spread of cancerous growth is going to be completely different, and react completely different to an angiogenesis inhibitor, depending on the number of blood vessels in the areas. Thus its succes in assisting in kidney cancer treatment.
They why is the drug still covered by Medicare?
Then go after the insurance companies, not the FDA. Most insurance companies choose to not cover drugs that are not approved by the FDA. If you want them to do so, write them letters, call them. It's the FDA's job to test and approve drugs, that's it. |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 22 December 2011 at 11:17am
For those of you following along at home, http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertlangreth/2010/09/17/why-the-avastin-breast-cancer-controversy-roches-own-news-release-tells-you/ - Forbes does a pretty good job of explaining the situation:
|
Posted By: mbro
Date Posted: 22 December 2011 at 2:18pm
|
Sounds like big government made the right call to me. -------------
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos. |
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 03 May 2012 at 9:28am
|
Holder to be charged with contempt for Fast and Furious lies... 'bout time. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57426710-503544/house-gop-to-distribute-draft-contempt-citation-against-eric-holder-over-gunwalking/" rel="nofollow - http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57426710-503544/house-gop-to-distribute-draft-contempt-citation-against-eric-holder-over-gunwalking/
------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 03 May 2012 at 10:13am
| Congress will cite him as contempt, but if he complies to their demands, then it goes no farther and he suffers no real harm. It's only if he continues to act in contempt that the House can then have their legal counsel intervene and have the Federal District Court System demand he comply, only then can he actually be charged and face real consequences. |
Posted By: Mack
Date Posted: 03 May 2012 at 10:40am
|
I still find it disturbing how little respect for the law the nation's most senior law enforcement official seems to have.
------------- 
|
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 08 June 2012 at 8:37am
|
So, yesterday Holder was in front of congress again on Fast and furious. Most shocking is that Holder said when "fast and furious" was used in emails, it wasn't talking about Fast and furious but "gunwalking" a different program... Seriously, he said that. Course you wouldn't know he said that if you read the "major" media as they as usual are covering for him and his lies. but "NEW" media is actually acting like journalists. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/06/07/fast-and-furious-holder-testifies-democrats-make-racket" rel="nofollow - http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/06/07/fast-and-furious-holder-testifies-democrats-make-racket
Notice the difference in the new york times version of this exchange... No mention of the blatant lying... weird. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/08/us/politics/holder-and-rep-issa-clash-again-over-fast-and-furious.html" rel="nofollow - http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/08/us/politics/holder-and-rep-issa-clash-again-over-fast-and-furious.html
The media again is complicit, hiding the facts from the public by the typical bias of omission. Oh, and in case you missed it... According to the head of CBS news. "ultimately journalism has changed … partisanship is very much a part of journalism now." http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/06/07/Moonves-Outs-Journalism-at-Obama-event" rel="nofollow - http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/06/07/Moonves-Outs-Journalism-at-Obama-event
Want to see it for yourself? For some reason, even after the media was provided with this exchange, AND the email in question. It wasn't covered by the major press in our country. ------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 20 June 2012 at 12:56pm
|
Unreal. So the President who knew NOTHING about fast and furious has just claimed executive privilege to keep the documents that he clearly saw and was lying about seeing or being a part of... Private from Congress... http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/20/house-republicans-tee-up-imminent-contempt-vote-against-holder/" rel="nofollow - http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/20/house-republicans-tee-up-imminent-contempt-vote-against-holder/ http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/20/obama-asserts-executive-privilege-over-ff-docs/" rel="nofollow - http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/20/obama-asserts-executive-privilege-over-ff-docs/
------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: StormyKnight
Date Posted: 20 June 2012 at 1:48pm
|
Imagine that. A politician lying. /smh ------------- 
|
Posted By: God
Date Posted: 20 June 2012 at 4:36pm
|
Or saw the the documements after and decided other information contained within the notes was none of Congress's business. |
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 21 June 2012 at 1:49am
I'm not sure I see this as any more comforting. Then again, the whole Fast and Furious scenario is pretty disconcerting. -------------
|
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 21 June 2012 at 8:55am
|
Obama bragged about pushing through gun control, and this was the vehicle they were going to use, to pad the statistics and make it look like this was a major problem... But, THEY were creating the problem, even though everyone knew it was wrong. THAT is why they don't want the documentation out there, as it will show that the White house was behind the movement with the goal of gun control. Yes politicians lie, but under oath before congress... that is a different matter, than just lying to the public. Good old relative morality and all that... Typical liberal practice, lie, lie some more, get caught lying and lie again. When the most transparent administration is caught lying, claim executive privileged, and hope the media covers for you as always... This is the same group that decided not to prosecute the black panthers in the blatant voter intimidation case... Because they were friends of the white house. ------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: mbro
Date Posted: 21 June 2012 at 4:39pm
|
Which gun control policies were they pushing? Allowing CC in national parks is gun control? -------------
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos. |
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 21 June 2012 at 6:00pm
Uh, that was one of W's last acts, not one of Obama's first. ------------- <Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.> |
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 22 June 2012 at 12:41pm
|
Obama bragged about working on "gun control under the radar". Which many believe was directly tied to inventing a crisis on the boarder with "American" guns so he could crack down on the sale of those guns. But, it got leaked that the white house was behind this tactic, to which they denied UNDER OATH (now retracted... how exactly do you retract your testimony under oath without being in contempt?) but now they have claimed executive privileged so no one can see it... It sure looks like they got caught manipulating statistics for the goal of more gun control. http://www.greeleygazette.com/press/?p=9614" rel="nofollow - http://www.greeleygazette.com/press/?p=9614
So here is MSNBC actually saying that fast and furious isn't a big deal... And anyone who brings it up is clearly racist... http://video.msnbc.msn.com/hardball/47911541#47911541" rel="nofollow - http://video.msnbc.msn.com/hardball/47911541#47911541
------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: deadeye007
Date Posted: 22 June 2012 at 2:28pm
A few months before Fast and Furious was leaked, Hilary Clinton and others were mentioning how American guns were being used in Mexico for violence. It would appear that the violence in Mexico was going to be the new tragedy used to enhance gun control laws. ------------- Face it guys, common sense is a form of wealth and we're surrounded by poverty.-Strato |
Posted By: evillepaintball
Date Posted: 22 June 2012 at 2:51pm
|
These are some pretty big conclusions you all are jumping to... -------------
|
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 22 June 2012 at 3:17pm
|
Just telling you what congress is talking about concerning fast and furious... It isn't "my" conclusion. http://washingtonexaminer.com/house-dems-focus-on-gun-control-in-fast-and-furious-hearing/article/2500189" rel="nofollow - http://washingtonexaminer.com/house-dems-focus-on-gun-control-in-fast-and-furious-hearing/article/2500189 http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/285196/cbs-links-fast-and-furious-gun-control-robert-verbruggen#" rel="nofollow - http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/285196/cbs-links-fast-and-furious-gun-control-robert-verbruggen# http://news.investors.com/article/600998/201202131854/fast-and-furious-gun-control-plot-.htm?p=full" rel="nofollow - http://news.investors.com/article/600998/201202131854/fast-and-furious-gun-control-plot-.htm?p=full
Clearly you didn't pay attention to this posted way back in this thread. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-57338546-10391695/documents-atf-used-fast-and-furious-to-make-the-case-for-gun-regulations/" rel="nofollow - http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-57338546-10391695/documents-atf-used-fast-and-furious-to-make-the-case-for-gun-regulations/ "
Documents obtained by CBS News show that the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) discussed using their covert operation "Fast and Furious" to argue for controversial new rules about gun sales. "
------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: evillepaintball
Date Posted: 22 June 2012 at 3:40pm
|
Sept. 2009: In an effort to stem the rising tide of violence caused by Mexican drug cartels, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) Phoenix office begins its controversial Operation "Fast and Furious."
"On July 14, 2010 after ATF headquarters in Washington D.C. received an update on Fast and Furious, ATF Field Ops Assistant Director Mark Chait emailed Bill Newell, ATF's Phoenix Special Agent in Charge of Fast and Furious: "Bill - can you see if these guns were all purchased from the same (licensed gun dealer) and at one time. We are looking at anecdotal cases to support a demand letter on long gun multiple sales. Thanks." " Notice the dates. The anecdotal evidence they were seeking was an after-thought that came up 10 months after the operation began. How can you claim that evidence shows that it was their intent all along when the evidence doesn't mention that until 10 months after it began, and who knows how long after it was first conceived? -------------
|
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 22 June 2012 at 3:56pm
|
Ah, when it was first conceived... Lets look at that. Have you looked into Holders past views on guns? He wants to brainwash people using the media, hollywood, the school systems, in the same way that they did to the tobacco industry. But, don't take my word for it, listen to him tell you himself. http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/03/18/Holder-Outlines-How-To-Change-Public-Opinion-On-Guns" rel="nofollow - http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/03/18/Holder-Outlines-How-To-Change-Public-Opinion-On-Guns
------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: evillepaintball
Date Posted: 22 June 2012 at 4:12pm
|
Wow... That changes everything. Sorry to have contradicted you. I didn't realize that he was so adamant about getting kids to stop carrying guns. Obviously a gun is something every kid should carry all the time. Damn him and everyone else who thinks kids should stop carrying guns in order to feel "cool". -------------
|
Posted By: mbro
Date Posted: 23 June 2012 at 2:04am
Plus you can once again check guns on an amtrak train, a rule put in place under W's admin: http://travel.usatoday.com/news/2010-11-30-amtrak-trains-guns_N.htm Basically I'm not seeing any crazy gun control legislation in the near future. That's one hot button topic that the dems don't need since it brings out massive voter turn out for republicans. -------------
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos. |
Posted By: evillepaintball
Date Posted: 23 June 2012 at 3:05am
|
So you are saying the Republicans would have a reason to invent a gun-control-scare in order to promote a massive voter turnout? I postulate that Fast and Furious was an operation planned by Republicans from the start to fail so that they could turn it around, place the blame on Democrats and invent an anti-gun conspiracy theory to scare their voters into getting out and voting on election day. All of the evidence clearly supports this hypothesis. -------------
|
Posted By: mbro
Date Posted: 23 June 2012 at 2:59pm
|
Well fast and furious was technically based on an operation done under the bush admin so I guess your theory works. -------------
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos. |
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 23 June 2012 at 3:08pm
No. that is incorrect, but the typical media spin on the story... Holder "recounted" that testimony. Gunwalking was done under Bush, but WITH the mexican government and ALL guns were tracked and people were arrested. This "new" fast and furious actually let the guns go and they didn't bother to track them, using stimulus money to fund the costs involved. And it was all done in secret. When boarder agent Brian Terry was killed then the administration got outed by the people who knew... They have been stonewalling since, and trying to lay the blame anywhere else... For the purpose of fast and furious was creating a major issue, as they knew it would cause violence on the boarder, so they could then point to the problem of "US" guns crossing the boarder, and then say "we better stop selling high powered weapons in the US to fix this problem"... Typical liberal manipulation of facts to get a desired goal. Ends justifying the means in other words. Too bad Brian Terry had to lose his life for this administration to be caught selling weapons to drug dealers bypassing the many regulations already in place. All so they could do gun control "under the radar". Here maybe Jon Stewarts version of the story might help you see what I am talking about... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vgil5gKBwWE" rel="nofollow - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vgil5gKBwWE
------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 26 June 2012 at 12:41pm
|
Issa drops a BOMB on Obama... Prediction, major media will cover this... The cat is officially out of the bag, and pulitzer prizes are awaiting. http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/26/issa-to-obama-either-youre-involved-in-fast-and-furious-or-your-executive-privilege-claim-is-unjustified/" rel="nofollow - http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/26/issa-to-obama-either-youre-involved-in-fast-and-furious-or-your-executive-privilege-claim-is-unjustified/ Issa said either Obama knew what was going on which is completely opposite of their testimony. Or, they are using executive privilege wrong for the purpose of obstructing a congressional investigation... “[Y]our privilege assertion means one of two things,” Issa wrote to the president in a letter dated June 25. “Either you or your most senior advisors were involved in managing Operation Fast & Furious and the fallout from it, including the false February 4, 2011 letter provided by the attorney general to the committee, or, you are asserting a presidential power that you know to be unjustified solely for the purpose of further obstructing a congressional investigation.” I just looked and even MSNBC has a front page story on this! Wow, guess the poll that showed the public has lost confidence in the major media is starting to make them pay attention to the corruption in this story. It has all the normal media catnip. Death, blood, gangs, drugs, government corruption, secrets, lies, manipulation, and contempt. And yet it took years for them to cover it... http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/26/12414358-issa-letter-to-obama-challenges-executive-privilege#comments" rel="nofollow - http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/26/12414358-issa-letter-to-obama-challenges-executive-privilege#comments
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/06/issa-writes-obama-to-denounce-executive-privilege-ploy/" rel="nofollow - http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/06/issa-writes-obama-to-denounce-executive-privilege-ploy/
White house official response... This is an "absurd" analysis... Oh really! Someone needs to start cleaning the stalls! ------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: evillepaintball
Date Posted: 26 June 2012 at 3:03pm
|
Have you ever considered doing your own research? Google "deliberative process privilege." -------------
|
Posted By: BARREL BREAK
Date Posted: 27 June 2012 at 1:12pm
|
|
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 02 October 2012 at 1:05pm
|
So we finally got a news organization to cover this scandal... Seems to the only "news" outlet that is asking Obama the tough questions too. That happened on Sunday, then today, ANOTHER boarder agent was killed... At the "Brian Terry" newly named location... http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/10/02/2-us-border-agents-shot-1-killed-near-major-drug-cooridor-in-arizona/#ixzz28918ysu6" rel="nofollow - http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/10/02/2-us-border-agents-shot-1-killed-near-major-drug-cooridor-in-arizona/#ixzz28918ysu6
Here is the link to part of the univision story that the major media in the US is ignoring as it would hurt their precious. http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/video/excerpt-univisions-fast-furious-special-17352864" rel="nofollow - http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/video/excerpt-univisions-fast-furious-special-17352864
------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: Lightningbolt
Date Posted: 02 October 2012 at 1:15pm
| Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems like there's token effort being done to stop the flow of illegals entering. What happens to them when they are caught? What happens when a us citizen illegally enters mexico? What happens to employers when they hire illegals in this country? The system ulf is upside down. The border issues started long before this nation even knew who obonga was. |