Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Fast and Furious, the Mexican Gun Scandal

Attorney General Eric Holder has been held in contempt of congress for refusing to give details on why the USGov sold weapons to Mexican drug cartels that were used to murder US police.

This is bullshit- why aren't the big media outlets- NYTimes, CNN, MSNBC, FOXNews, etc. covering this story?

-----

After earlier none other than Obama stepped up and invoked an executive privilege, hoping the next step would be avoided, Darrell Issa just called the president and the AG's bluff:

HOUSE PANEL VOTES TO HOLD ERIC HOLDER IN CONTEMPT - BBG But wait, there's more:

HOLDER CALLS CONTEMPT VOTE `EXTRAORDINARY' AND UNNECESSARY

HOLDER CALLS CONTEMPT VOTE `ELECTION-YEAR TACTIC'

... And now to give some illegal immigrant voters pseudo-amnesty. So aside from this soaring acrimony between Republicans and Democrats, the "Fiscal cliff" issue will be promptly resolved. Promise.

From Bloomberg:

A U.S. House committee brushed aside President Barack Obama’s claim of executive privilege and held Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress for failing to turn over documents related to a law enforcement effort to track guns to Mexican drug cartels.   In a party-line vote, the Republican majority on the House Oversight and Government Reform panel voted to approve the first contempt citation for a Cabinet member in 14 years. Republicans said Holder failed to comply with a subpoena for documents in the Fast and Furious gun operation, which allowed illegally purchased firearms from the U.S. to wind up in Mexico.   The 23-17 committee vote marks an escalation in a standoff that began last year between Republican lawmakers and the Obama administration. The full House would have to approve the measure before it could refer the case to the U.S. attorney in Washington to determine whether prosecution is warranted for failing to comply with a congressional subpoena.   The House panel is seeking documents describing internal Justice Department discussions about a February 2011 letter to lawmakers that Holder later said mistakenly contained incorrect information.   The Justice Department says it already has provided more than 7,600 pages of documents in the case.   This is the first time Obama has invoked executive privilege, according to the White House.   Executive Privilege   Executive privilege is a principle that says the executive branch can’t be forced by the legislative branch to disclose confidential communications when they would harm operations.   Documents responsive to the House panel’s subpoena relate to “sensitive law enforcement activities, including ongoing criminal investigations and prosecutions,” said Deputy Attorney General James Cole in a letter today to Republican Representative Darrell Issa of California, the chairman of the House panel.   Guns in Fast and Furious ended up “lost” and will turn up at crime scenes on both sides of the U.S.-Mexico border for years, Holder told lawmakers last year.   Two of about 2,000 guns that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives allowed to be carried away were found at the scene of the December 2010 murder of U.S. Border Patrol agent Brian Terry in Arizona, according to a congressional report.   Holder has said he didn’t learn of the tactics in the operation until after it was the subject of news reports. Since then, he has banned the use of similar law enforcement methods.   Holder last year told a Senate hearing that he regretted a Feb. 4, 2011 letter the Justice Department sent lawmakers that indicated the ATF hadn’t “knowingly allowed” the tactics in the law enforcement operation to be employed. Information in the letter turn out to be inaccurate, he said.

by Anonymousreply 10512/20/2012

I thought Republicans were against gun control and liked guns? Guess not.

by Anonymousreply 106/20/2012

R2-

There is a huge difference between gun control and the government selling automatic weapons to criminals and then covering up the sales when those weapons are used to kill American citizens.

by Anonymousreply 306/21/2012

The program was started under Bush, but in general it is no secret that the CIA has been moving weapons to Mexico for decades to destabilize it.

by Anonymousreply 406/21/2012

Why would the CIA want to promote instability in Mexico?

I'm serious, especially since I live in a border state.

by Anonymousreply 506/21/2012

The CIA is evil and should be abolished. They are all criminals. They have no right to be engaging in their games. They are supposed to be an intelligence organization - their only jurisdiction is to collect intelligence for the President. They are not supposed to be involved in military operations.

As Harry Truman said after JFK was killed , when he set up the CIA, he had no idea of the monster it would grow into.

by Anonymousreply 606/21/2012

Yes, r4, please explain why the U.S. wants a destabilized next-door neighbor?

And, for others, was it the CIA or the Justice Department that was funnelling the guns to the drug cartels? And what was the scheme -- to get them arrested for having illegal U.S. weapons?

by Anonymousreply 706/21/2012

[quote]This is bullshit- why aren't the big media outlets- NYTimes, CNN, MSNBC, FOXNews, etc. covering this story?

by Anonymousreply 806/21/2012

[quote]This is bullshit- why aren't the big media outlets- NYTimes, CNN, MSNBC, FOXNews, etc. covering this story?

Because they are? Next stupid question?

This too shall pass.

by Anonymousreply 906/21/2012

Obama claims executive priv.

Holder complies with contempt of Congress.

Bush outed as war criminal.

Republicans again shoot themselves in the foot.

Obama plays chess while Republicans play checkers.

by Anonymousreply 1006/21/2012

God, I was getting ready to write up this long post about why the this whole "Fast and Furious" thing is really a joke...thank goodness for Rachel Maddow, she covered why this manufactured crisis is completely stupid.

by Anonymousreply 1106/21/2012

Is anyone surprised? The US has been selling weapons and drugs for years so why is it a big deal now?

Oh, yeah, a negro is in the white house.

by Anonymousreply 1206/21/2012

What the F&F mouth breathers don't say id that the ONLY US citizen to be shot by one of these tracked guns would have just be shot by a different gun smuggled from the US.

by Anonymousreply 1306/21/2012

From Daily Kos:

[quote]2008: Darrell Issa Voted "YES" to Fund Project Gunrunner & Merida Initiative

R11, you never hear the backstory on this from anyone else. Thank goodness for Rachel Maddow.

by Anonymousreply 1406/21/2012

Spread the word, R14.

by Anonymousreply 1506/21/2012

(R5) You have a good point. It's amazing what some of these darlings can come up with isn't it? Why would America want to destabilize Mexico or Canada for that matter? LMAO. I think some of us gays just love our "conspiracy theories".

by Anonymousreply 1606/21/2012

R16, first of all, there is nothing wrong with 'conspiracy theories'. Why do people always put them down? Conspiracies are real. They happen. We even have a charge in the law called 'conspiracy'.

Secondly, there is a history of the CIA being involved with assassination, political interference and weapons. So it's not something that has just been made up.

by Anonymousreply 1706/21/2012

But, again, it's not rational that our government would want one of our 2 next door neighbors to be "unstable."

by Anonymousreply 1806/21/2012

And can we stop referring to this as a "scandal". The only scandal here is the performance of House Republicans.

by Anonymousreply 1906/21/2012

The NRA are probably paying the bills for everyone involved so the problem will go away.

The NRA runs this country...because Americans are fucking morons.

by Anonymousreply 2006/21/2012

R18, you are very naive. I used to be naive and no longer am. Read up on the history of the CIA.

by Anonymousreply 2106/21/2012

You people are pathetic. This is a nonsense FOX News non-story and shame on you for trying to pretend it's not.

by Anonymousreply 2206/21/2012

Rachel Maddow just said once again that F&F is a pile of bullshit.

by Anonymousreply 2306/21/2012

What's this I hear about Darrell Issa being a thug, and an arsonist?

How did this guy wind up a Congressman?

by Anonymousreply 2406/21/2012

R22, it may be trumped up by the Republicans, but we can't ignore it because it is making news in other places. CNN spent a lot of time on it last night.

by Anonymousreply 2506/21/2012

Wasn't Issa rewarded with a seat in Congress for his role in the recall of Gray Davis? Issa spent $2 million of his own money to initiate the recall and ran a pseudo-serious campaign for governor to hide the fact that the fix was in for Arnold.

The plan was for the "Governator" to step in and let Enron off the hook for the fraudulent manipulation of the electricity market in northern California. Issa's seat in Congress was his plum for services rendered.

by Anonymousreply 2606/21/2012

Issa is one of the wealthiest people in Congress, so you certainly wonder why he felt the need to be in office.

by Anonymousreply 2706/21/2012

This place is dead because of primetime.

by Anonymousreply 2806/21/2012

I am not saying you are wrong R29, but you have to think about what Rachel is trying to accomplish. There has been a big right wing media empire whose goal was give talking points to their audience to help the right wing agenda.

The point of Rachel's show is to do the same from a left wing perspective except to always base it in facts. She isn't claiming to be impartial, and she of course ignores point that would make the Dems look bad. She calls out the right on their shit but she doesn't lie or warp the truth while doing it, everything she says is factual, and that makes me respect her in spite of the obvious agenda.

by Anonymousreply 3006/21/2012

Exactly, r30. Obviously, both Fox and Maddow are biased, but Maddow supports her thesis with genuine facts which is not something Fox does.

And, as an aside, JFK is probably the most overrated president of the 20th century.

by Anonymousreply 3106/21/2012

Wrong, R31. JFK was the last President to stand up for the American people against the CIA and military-industrial complex and he paid with it for his life.

by Anonymousreply 3206/21/2012

JFK was behind the largest peacetime military spending to that point.

by Anonymousreply 3306/21/2012

Bullshit, r32. JFK gave the OK to the Bay of Pigs. He allowed the CIA to come up with various ways of attempting to assassinate Castro, and gave the OK to several failed attempts.

Under Eisenhower, military funding had actually declined, under JFK, military funding sky-rocketed.

He inspired young people and married well. That's about it.

by Anonymousreply 3406/21/2012

R33, JFK tried to reduce military spending. If you want to argue otherwise, you need to back it up.

And remember, JFK, like all other Presidents, didn't control military spending by himself. The CIA and Pentagon take the amounts they want, regardless of what the President wants. And many of the existing budget and plans were in place under Eisenhower.

by Anonymousreply 3506/21/2012

Boy are you a total asshole and a liar, R34. Do you work for the CIA? You are totally misrepresenting the truth about JFK's administration.

It was the CIA who were behind the Bay of Pigs. They executed parts of it with JFK's knowledge, and that's why he didn't want to go along with providing air cover for the ground operation and make it even worse. That's one of the reasons they killed him. Allen Dulles was involved with that one, as were many others.

It was the CIA who wanted to assassinate Castro, not JFK. Castro even said recently that he liked JFK and had a better relationship with him than he did with anyone else.

Do your research next time before you try to pull that crap.

by Anonymousreply 3706/21/2012

[quote]Even while running for President in 1960, JFK appealed to the "tough on the Soviets" issue by consistently hammering at Eisenhower for America's supposed lack of leadership, and America "falling behind the Soviets." It was JFK, promising more money for defense spending and American readiness when he charged Eisenhower for allowing a non-existent "missile gap" to develop between the U.S. and Soviet nuclear arsenals. And it was JFK, who during the debates with Nixon, charged that Eisenhower policy had resulted in the loss of Cuba.

[quote]Upon assuming the Presidency, JFK's Inaugural Address was as hawkish as one could ever get. "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we will pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of liberty."

[quote]As President, JFK, in order to credibly claim he had taken action against the "missile gap," ordered an increase in spending on nuclear missiles that set off an arms race that resulted in America losing its nuclear superiority by the end of the decade. Those who point to the Limited Test Ban Treaty as proof of JFK wanting to begin the first step toward disarmament, should remember that JFK wanted a ban chiefly for environmental reasons, and not because he envisioned the long-term elimination of nuclear weapons. Indeed, it was JFK's own Defense Secretary, Robert McNamara who came up with the Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) principle that was dependent entirely on the maintenance of a sizable nuclear arsenal.

by Anonymousreply 3806/21/2012

Kennedy was no saint, and the paternal history can lead one to believe that he was rather "well-connected" but (and trust me, I'm no JFK fanboy) a careful reading of his actions and inactions (and his growing unease towards the end of his life about the direction his military advisors were leading him and the country) will leave you with a different impression.

Also, anyone who doesn't think LBJ celebrated the day is a moron. He knew he could turn his connections, power and lack of a soul into a fortune.

by Anonymousreply 3906/21/2012

R38, that is one of THE worst websites on the entire Internet! It's a pro-Warren Commission site. It has an infamous reputation. It is full of lies and distortions and presents the CIA's version of events only. It believes Lee Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy. It covers up all the evidence of the CIA killing Kennedy and the truth about how they manipulated events.

by Anonymousreply 4006/21/2012

I've never seen a thread were sooooo many posters who don't know shit, think they know everything. This was bullshit. Fuck The Attorney General.

by Anonymousreply 4106/21/2012

Are you arguing with the quote from his inaugural address? Are you denying that Kennedy campaigned on the "missile gap?"

I can find [italic]lots[/italic] of sites that will back that up. And I remember, even if you don't, that Joe Kennedy was a McCarthy supporter and RFK was on McCarthy's team. The Kennedys were all quite anti-Communist.

by Anonymousreply 4206/21/2012

R38, that is the naive and inexperienced JFK. His actions in office, despite the "Missle Crisis" and Bay of Pigs, are markedly different- especially by 1963.

Nixon also stood up to the CIA, and look where it got him. Carter was too out of the loop to care. Ford was director of the CIA.

GHWBush was shadow leader of the CIA, Clinton was a Rhodes scholar (famous as a recruiting grounds) and had many ties with the Agency prior to his election, and Obama's mother, father and stepfather all worked for CIA front companies (as did Geithner's parents) so to dispute that the CIA has not had major influence (if not outright control) of the Executive branch for nearly 50 years is just a sign of ignorance and hubris.

by Anonymousreply 4306/21/2012

Oh for god's sake R38 what do you not realize? The US government, no matter who is in power, is lying all the time. The CIA and the military are ruling.

by Anonymousreply 4406/22/2012

Let me see if I've got this right.

You assert that the CIA and the military are ruling and that Kennedy was against the military build-up. Anyone who produces evidence that doesn't support your assertion is a stooge. And you yourself don't need to cite any evidence in support of your assertion because you're right.

Does that pretty much sum it up?

by Anonymousreply 4506/22/2012

[quote]Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.t

[quote]This much we pledge—and more.

I hope bartleby is a neutral enough site for you.

by Anonymousreply 4606/22/2012

R42, OF COURSE Kennedy ran against Communism. OF COURSE he took a hardline officially. He had to. That's what you do when you run for office so you won't appear like a left-wing Pinko or turn-off the establishment. No one is denying Kennedy started out looking like a Hawk.

But his actions in the years from 1961-1963 demonstrated otherwise. After he was tricked by the CIA into the Bay of Pigs and found out what they were up to and that they were pursuing their own military agenda against the interests of the American people and the President, he went up against them. Remember when he threatened to destroy the CIA?

Why do you think Harry Truman wrote a concerned opinion piece in December 1963, expressing worry about how out of control the CIA had gotten from the way he originally created it?

The bottom line is that everything Oliver Stone and Colonel Fletcher Prouty said in 'JFK' turned out to be true - de-classfied documents show that Kennedy was about to pull Americans OUT of Vietnam before he was assassinated. Once he was assassinated, that was reversed, and the CIA got their War for $$$$.

by Anonymousreply 4706/22/2012

Here in the U.S., our Central State and Financial Elites are also desperately trying to maintain their control, even as their control strangles the economy and social innovation. Being controlled by five "too big to fail" banks and six media corporations is like being dominated by the buggy-whip industry and the horse-manure-collection industry.

The way forward is to dismantle the five banks and six media companies and allow 500 banks to compete in a transparent market but be unable to buy other banks or other companies. If there are 500 banks that are forced to compete in a transparent marketplace, it will be very difficult for those corporations to purchase the political power the TBTF banks own.

The Federal Reserve is the ultimate centralized horse-manure-collection industry. Like the Catholic Church trying to control Gutenberg's printing press, the Fed is terrified of transparency, liberty, competition and the technological forces of networked decentralization. Though those in power cannot dare contemplate it, their highly centralized institution and the chokehold of its authority are already doomed.

Centralized control leads to stagnation and poverty, which leads to the overthrow of oppressive political Elites. If the centralized Elites attempt to corral the Web to serve their own narrow self-interests, it will overflow their narrow channels and erode their power. Either way, their attempts to control disruptive technology will fail. Their only choice is which path to destruction they wish to tread.

by Anonymousreply 4906/22/2012

Speech of Senator John F. Kennedy, American Legion Convention, Miami Beach, FL, October 18, 1960

. . .

[quote]The question is, What must we do to regain our strength? In my judgment, in January 1961, the next President of the United States, whoever he may be, should do the following things:

[quote]First, we must take immediate steps to protect our present nuclear striking force from surprise attack. Today, more than 90 percent of our retaliatory force is made up of aircraft and missiles which move from unprotectable bases, whose location is known to the Russians.

[quote]Second, we must step up crash programs on the ultimate weapon. The Polaris submarine, the Minuteman missile, which will eventually close the missile gap.

[quote]Third, we must modernize, and I think especially give an airlift capacity to the armed services, particularly the Army. It does not do any good to have 17 divisions stationed here if you can't move them around the world within 24 or 48 hours. I would put that near the top, to move them by jet all around the globe to increase our forces substantially. [Applause.] But I want to make it clear that this is only the background to the struggle of power. Not one Soviet soldier in the last 8 years has crossed the frontiers of the free world. Not one Soviet bomb has dropped from missiles or from airplanes. And yet the Soviet power has steadily increased. Cuba has been lost for the time being, I hope, to the Communists. Laos has begun to slip behind the Iron Curtain and may in the next 7 or 8 days. Ghana and Guinea in Africa have moved toward the Soviet bloc. A revolution in Iraq destroyed the Middle Eastern Pact. The Communists have captured control of one of the key factions in the fight for power in the Congo. And Communist influence, propaganda, and subversion, are moving in Latin America, Africa, and Asia. I believe the American Legion should consider carefully the present technique which the Soviet Union and the Chinese Communists are employing in order to increase their power.

[quote]When President Roosevelt was President, when President Truman was President, in the early part of the 1950's, the struggle was to build sufficient military power to prevent the Soviet Union from crossing national frontiers. But now they move in and begin to capture the nationalist movement in Nigeria. They captured the movement of Lumumba in Congo. They captured the Castro movement in Cuba. They are working to capture other movements in South America. And without a soldier crossing into those countries, without a shot being fired, by the change of mind of a paratroop commander in Laos, a country which we spent more money in per capita than any other country in the world, a country where we spent $300 million, where we have been paying the army for the last 2 years, they are about to seize control of Laos, and not a Communist soldier or a Russian soldier has crossed the boundary of Laos.

[quote]How do we stop this kind of conquest in the sixties? This is the kind of conquest that we are going to have to face, the kind that puts heat on in the United Nations, the kind that puts the pressure on, the kind that compels the countries of Africa to vote against us on the admission of Red China, the kind of heat that causes a candidate for President of Brazil to come up and call on Castro in order to secure his support in the fight in Brazil. They work in Venezuela. They work in Mexico. Russian soldiers do not move and yet their power increases. They could, by 1970, control great sections of the earth without ever advancing their armies beyond their present frontiers. So we have to concern ourselves with building up our military power because their military power is behind their expansion, but that is not enough, if we are going to stop the Communist advance in the 1960's.

by Anonymousreply 5006/22/2012

I will not argue with conspiracy theorists.

I will not argue with conspiracy theorists.

I will not argue with conspiracy theorists.

I will not argue with conspiracy theorists.

. . .

by Anonymousreply 5106/22/2012

R50, you're still quoting from 1960. That's before JFK was in office. The relevant decisions and positions are those he made AFTER 1960. As mentioned above, he was about to pull Americans OUT of Vietnam in 1963 when he was assassinated, he refused to give air cover in the Bay of Pigs, he threatened to destroy the CIA, and he gave a speech calling for peace in mid-1963, including co-operation with the Soviets.

That's a little different than what he said in 1960, yes?

by Anonymousreply 5206/22/2012

Fuck off, R51.

by Anonymousreply 5306/22/2012

I second that, R53.

Fuck off, R51.

by Anonymousreply 5406/22/2012

Hey, I asserted that Kennedy was behind the largest peacetime increase in military spending to that date. Someone demanded I back that up. I backed it up with a quote and a link. That site was denounced. I backed up the quotes with links to other sites. I was told that didn't matter because they were from the wrong year.

I provided links supporting the view of Kennedy as a hawk. So, the argument was changed to "well, of course, he was a hawk then but you need to worry about X year." That's what I get for arguing with conspiracy theorists: Babble and diversion and babble.

Fuck you, too, fuckwits.

by Anonymousreply 5506/22/2012

As do conservatives R45. Libiots, libturds, libtards, all seen every day on blogs.

by Anonymousreply 5706/22/2012

But if we have a revolution...the military will take over and it will be fascist all the way...until the troops realize who their friends are.

by Anonymousreply 5906/22/2012

[quote]...until the troops realize who their friends are.

O's administration today issued recommendations on pay increases, better benefits for the combat grunts.

by Anonymousreply 6006/22/2012

R36: "Fast and Furious" is just like Iran-Contra? You can't be seriously arguing that.

When Obama starts negotiating hostage deals with the Iranian government, using that money to fund anti-government rebels in Nicaragua, get back to us.

by Anonymousreply 6106/22/2012

It is worth repeating that while the voters chose "Hope and Change," the new Democratic president chose to retain the out-going Republican president's Secretary of Defense, in part to keep the Neo-Con wars going apace.

by Anonymousreply 6206/22/2012

Perhaps, R62, but the argument was that it would not be good to changes horses mid-stream. Retaining Robert Gates for a couple of years meant more continuity .

by Anonymousreply 6306/22/2012

R55, when you use the term 'conspiracy theorists', you reveal your true motives.

As explained above, conspiracies are real and they happen. So what's theoretical about them? There have been assassination conspiracies from Julius Caesar to Abraham Lincoln to JFK. And there's even a charge in the law called 'conspiracy'.

And as was also explained, you cannot compare the 1960 election platform to the actions JFK took in office which were contrary to that platform. He opposed the CIA and the military establishment. He fired Allen Dulles and Charles Cabbell. He called for co-operation with the Soviets - ("We all breath the same air, we all inhabit the same Earth"). He was about to pull Americans out of Vietnam.

And then he was assassinated.

by Anonymousreply 6406/22/2012

[quote]As explained above, conspiracies are real and they happen.

Conspiracies are real. What marks someone as a conspiracy theorist is that he'll shoot down every piece of evidence you provide to contradict his assertions. Your evidence will be deemed tainted. When he can no longer shoot down your evidence, he'll claim your evidence is irrelevant because all it shows is xyz. Then he'll assert one thing after another without any evidence to support his assertions. If you keep producing evidence that undercuts his claims, he'll scream that you're a stooge. He'll cling to his theory like a life raft in a deluge, no matter how many holes you poke in the theory.

by Anonymousreply 6506/22/2012

No, that's somebody who doesn't listen to evidence, not a conspiracy theorist. You're using the term to create a negative assumption around conspiracies which is unjustified.

by Anonymousreply 6606/23/2012

[quote]No, that's somebody who doesn't listen to evidence, not a conspiracy theorist. You're using the term to create a negative assumption around conspiracies which is unjustified.

No, "conspiracy theorist" is a derogatory term because of diehard conspiracy believers who are immune to reason, evidence, and logic.

As for me, I was once a prosecutor who handled white-collar criminal cases. I know from experience that conspiracies exist. And I know from history that conspiracies affect politics. But I also have experience presenting evidence and arguing credible theories to juries.

The changing reaction of our resident conspiracy theorist to evidence that Kennedy was a cold warrior who pushed the largest peacetime increase in military spending proves that he's immune to evidence and reason, thus deserving of a derogatory title.

by Anonymousreply 6706/23/2012

This is the worst thing that could have happened to Obama. He's not going to live this one down. Americans love their guns. Obama looks like the Commie Pinko they labeled him as all along. "Obama is coming to take our guns!" Here's your evidence!

Then, he goes on national television, calling for illegal aliens to be able to stay in the country without being automatically imprisoned or thrown out instantly.

Guns + illegal aliens = Obama is a traitor, and needs to be impeached, and the Right would be able to do it if Obama was reelected this year, but he won't be. In 2013, we will have a full Republican Congress, a Republican President, and then a lifetime Conservative majority on the Supreme Court.

Gay rights are going to be dumped when they come before the Court. Gays are not wanted in America.

Liberals are done in the US. 8 years of Bush was not going to turn the US into a Liberal oasis. If it weren't for Palin, and the hatred of Bush, "President Obama" would never have happened. America was not overwhelmingly pro-Obama in 2008. They didn't want Palin as President once older-than-dirt McCain dropped dead in office.

America is just pro-Republican, pro-Conservatism. It's never going to be Liberal. Republicans will win in the end every time. If you have a problem with this, it's time to move to another country. You're wasting your time fighting against the inevitable. America is set up for Republican rule. Corporations own the US, and Republicans are pro-corporations, and pro-corporate Capitalism. Money talks in America. The Supreme Court closed the book on the issue.

There also will never be a revolution. Americans are Conservative, and there aren't enough Liberals to change anything.

The entire Conservative base is lined up behind Romney, and every single one of them will be heading to the polls: the racists who hate blacks, supposed-Arabs, and Mexicans, the NRA lovers, and the anti-gay brigade, who now wants Obama executed over his pro-gay marriage announcement.

The economy alone was going to do Obama in. Everything else just ensures that Obama loses by a landslide. It's going to be 1980 all over again: the Romney Revolution.

by Anonymousreply 6806/23/2012

Not "Reality" at all. America is far to the left of both parties. The Revolution can be postponed but not for long.

by Anonymousreply 6906/23/2012

[quote]Rachel Maddow just said once again that F&F is a pile of bullshit.

Well, now, does she take a stance on Primetime or soap threads?

by Anonymousreply 7006/23/2012

R68, most American's are liberal on social issues and conservative on fiscal expenses, but the false "Dem/Rep" dichotomy keeps them apart.

by Anonymousreply 7106/24/2012

[post by racist shit-stain removed.]

by Anonymousreply 7206/24/2012

R67, you are full of garbage. You've been told repeatedly that Kennedy was not a cold warrior -and yet you keep on stating it. Why?

Have you not read anything?

1. He opposed the CIA and threatened to break it into a thousand pieces

2. He refused to allow them to turn the Bay of Pigs into a major military operation against Cuba

3. He took steps to pull America out of Vietnam just before he was assassinated

4. He called for peace and co-operation with the Soviets in his "We all breath the same air" speech.

by Anonymousreply 7306/24/2012

R11, thank you for the Rachel Maddow link. I kept hearing this term on the news and was wondering what the connection was between the Obama administration and the Asian automobile import scene.

by Anonymousreply 7406/24/2012

Step

Away

From

The

Hyperbole.

It is broadly acknowledged that this is a no-win move by the Republicans to grand-stand. They practically begged Obama to press the executive privilege claim, and he finally did. In effect, things now either go to the Democrat who is the US Attorney in DC, who will refuse action, or it will go to a special investigation that will not see any action until well after the election. Both sides will use the issue as they wish, but Bush's and the Republicans' hands are all over this, so don't look for much. It was a dumb move.

Not the questioning of the absurd policy, but the way it was used for political play here.

by Anonymousreply 7506/24/2012

[quote]You've been told repeatedly that Kennedy was not a cold warrior -and yet you keep on stating it. Why?

I'm supposed to agree with you because you command it? Really?

Eisenhower had around 900 advisors in Vietnam.

In 1960 Kennedy campaigned on the "missile gap."

1961 Inaugural speech:

[quote]Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

Spring 1961 - Kennedy greenlit Operation Zapata a/k/a the Bay of Pigs plan.

1961 - around 3,000 U.S. troops in Vietnam

1962 - around 11,000 U.S. troops in Vietnam

June 1963 - Berlin Wall speech:

[quote]There are many people in the world who really don't understand, or say they don't, what is the great issue between the free world and the Communist world. Let them come to Berlin. There are some who say that Communism is the wave of the future. Let them come to Berlin. And there are some who say in Europe and elsewhere we can work with the Communists. Let them come to Berlin. And there are even a few who say that it is true that Communism is an evil system, but it permits us to make economic progress. Lass' sie nach Berlin kommen. Let them come to Berlin.

1963 - over 23,000 U.S. troops in Vietnam

That looks to me like Kennedy was not just a strong opponent of Communism, but a man willing to commit money and troops to oppose it. Let's see your evidence.

by Anonymousreply 7606/24/2012

R76, I will post some more of it later. Why should we have to post things which are established fact and which have been known for years.

Have you never seen the Walter Cronkite interview with JFK in 1963? He was already getting ready to pull the U.S. out of Vietnam at that point.

Then he gave the speech in the Summer of 1963 calling for peace and co-operation with the Soviets. Have you heard the "We all breath the same air" speech?

Have you seen the de-classified documents showing JFK was pulling America out of Vietnam at the end of 1963 and getting ready to make it official and permanent in 1964-1965?

Have you heard of the Bay of Pigs? Have you seen the coverage and discussion where JFK refused to escalate it into a full-blown military war like the CIA wanted?

Have you heard about JFK's clashes with the CIA and the Pentagon? Have you read that Allen Dulles and Charles Cabbell were fired from the CIA?

by Anonymousreply 7706/24/2012

[quote]Have you heard of the Bay of Pigs?

I mentioned it in my post. I noticed the troop levels in Vietnam kept escalating after the Bay of Pigs.

Here's what you wrote back at r47:

[quote]OF COURSE Kennedy ran against Communism. OF COURSE he took a hardline officially. He had to. That's what you do when you run for office so you won't appear like a left-wing Pinko or turn-off the establishment. No one is denying Kennedy started out looking like a Hawk.

[quote]But his actions in the years from 1961-1963 demonstrated otherwise. After he was tricked by the CIA into the Bay of Pigs and found out what they were up to and that they were pursuing their own military agenda against the interests of the American people and the President, he went up against them. Remember when he threatened to destroy the CIA?

You claimed that he started out looking like a hawk, but his actions in the years from 1961 to 1963 demonstrated otherwise. However, I just posted troop levels showing military escalation in 1961 to 1963. How do you reconcile the troop levels with your claim that the period 1961-1963 showed him no longer looking like a hawk?

As for the the speeches and documents you referred to in r77, please provide excerpts and links. After all, I did my homework and provided you excerpts.

by Anonymousreply 7806/24/2012

R78, they're facts that are common knowledge. Surely you've heard of them. I can post links, but it's odd to research something that is known.

Have you not heard of the Walter Cronkite interview with JFK either?

And troop level increases occurred without the permission of the President or because he was pressured into it by the CIA and Pentagon. Remember - they WANTED the Vietnam War.

What is significant is that he tried to end the War and then he was assassinated.

by Anonymousreply 7906/24/2012

[quote]Not "Reality" at all. America is far to the left of both parties.

Bwahahahaha!

[quote]most American's are liberal on social issues and conservative on fiscal expenses

Not true, and that poll Dems tout was done by a polling company that just went down in flames for fixing numbers. Americans are not liberal on social issues. Ony 30 percent of voters want gays to be able to marry, and they want Mexicans deported. The only thing that majority is okay with is abortion rights. They don't agree with Affirmitive Action, and the majority don't believe in Evolution. Next.

There are more Republicans and Conservatives than Liberals and Democrats. This is why the GOP always ends up winning hearts and mind (vomit).

If Obamacare gets shot down, Obama is the weakest candidate we've had since Dukakis. This is the last thing he has. I don't trust this Supreme Court with anything, especially not after the 'Corporations Are People' ruling.

by Anonymousreply 8006/24/2012

"Ony 30 percent of voters want gays to be able to marry"

Are you the same person who quoted this number on another thread? Where do you keep finding it? It's not true. It's totally at odds with all the other national polling by major news organizations.

Most major polls show support is around 50%, including CNN's poll.

by Anonymousreply 8106/24/2012

[quote]I can post links, but it's odd to research something that is known.

No, not really.

This argument started because I claimed that Kennedy was behind the largest peacetime increase in the military budget. Someone, and I think it was you, demanded I back that up. I backed it up with multiple links and speech excerpts. I keep backing up my claims with links and excerpts. If you want me to take your side of the argument seriously, provide links and excerpts.

I'm not into debating the Kennedy assassination. I happened to know that Kennedy escalated the military budget because it came up when people were shooting down Ann Coulter's book about Democrats being traitors.

by Anonymousreply 8206/24/2012

R82, I'll back up my statements with links later - don't you worry. It's not hard to find proof of well-documented facts.

But I'm not sure why you think it's so significant that there may have been a military build-up during the early part of the JFK administration. Who cares? It's not significant, and it's at odds with everything else and does not change all of the other factors mentioned above.

by Anonymousreply 8306/24/2012

[quote]But I'm not sure why you think it's so significant that there may have been a military build-up during the early part of the JFK administration

If you thought it was insignificant, then why didn't you state that back at r35? Instead, you demanded that I back up my claim at r33 that Kennedy increased the military budget. That's how this got started. I backed up my claim. You denounced the site I linked to. I provided other links. Then you started claiming it was insignificant. WTF? You didn't think it was insignificant back at r33. You thought my statement was bogus and demanded I back it up. If you're such an all-fired expert on Kennedy, why did I have to back up such a widely known piece of information? And now you can't be bothered to provide links or excerpts to back your claims. I find it increasingly hard to take you seriously.

by Anonymousreply 8406/24/2012

I'm so glad the media buried this story. Imagine how bad it would look on Bush if it came out.

by Anonymousreply 8512/13/2012

Damn, OP. You are all over this board with Fast and Furious and the aerial drone thread.

Are you a gay republican or what?

by Anonymousreply 8612/13/2012

No, I'm a liberal, R86. I'm just one who isn't a sycophant like you.

Do you think drones over America is a good thing?

by Anonymousreply 8712/14/2012

I assume you think the NYPD was "just doing their job" by hunting this guy down. How many murders (or "stop and frisk") could they have stopped while tracking one peaceful dissident. Fuck you, nazi wannabe.

-----

A street artist who hung satirical posters criticising police surveillance activities has been arrested after an NYPD investigation tracked him to his doorstep. With the help of a small crew, the artist now identified as Essam Attia had placed the fake Big Brother-style adverts in locations throughout Manhattan, using a fake Van Wagner maintenance van and uniforms to avoid detection.

In a video interview with Animal New York prior to his arrest, a voice-scrambled and silhouetted Attia explained that he placed the provocative ads to "create a conversation" about disturbing trends in police surveillance, alluding to recent efforts by the Department of Homeland Security to "facilitate and accelerate the adoption" of unmanned aerial drones by local police departments. The posters also followed recent expansions in NYPD surveillance powers which allow officers to monitor citizens by creating fake identities on social networking sites.

The NYPD's response seems to have proven Attia's point: months after forensics teams and a "counter-terrorism" unit was spotted on the scene, the NYPD last Wednesday successfully tracked down and arrested the 29-year-old art school vandal, who identified himself in the video as a former "geo-spatial analyst" serving US military operations in Iraq.

It's not the first time the NYPD has overreacted to unsanctioned public art. Earlier this year, the department arrested 50-year-old Takeshi Miyakawa after he illuminated the streets of Williamsburg, Brooklyn with harmless LED lanterns made from plastic "I Heart NY" shopping bags. The crackdown in Attia's case, however, seems to have more to do with the public embarrassment faced by the department as a result of the mock ads.

Attia now faces 56 counts of criminal possession of a forged instrument and grand larceny possession of stolen property for his spree last September, with an additional charge of weapons possession after officers allegedly found an unloaded .22 caliber revolver under his bed during the raid. As for the drones themselves, the NYPD has still not revealed any plans to use aerial robotic enforcers. But if the expanding list of FAA authorizations and documented use of drones by local police in Texas and Miami, Florida are any indication, it may be only a matter of time.

by Anonymousreply 8812/14/2012

Here's a free clue, moron: bumping all of your old nutty threads doesn't make them any more convincing than when you first posted to them.

by Anonymousreply 8912/14/2012

R89-

Address the issue, or don't show people how stupid you are.

Do you want drones killing innocent Americans the way do in Iraq, or Afghanistan.

by Anonymousreply 9012/14/2012

[quote]Address the issue, or don't show people how stupid you are.

ROFL.... Oh, the irony.... Which issue, moron? You never can stick to just one issue. The original issue of this thread? It's a non-issue, a political sideshow.

[quote]Do you want drones killing innocent Americans the way do in Iraq, or Afghanistan.

Let me know as soon as that happens.

by Anonymousreply 9112/14/2012

WASHINGTON -- A 16-year-old American boy killed in an Obama administration drone strike "should have [had] a far more responsible father," Obama campaign senior adviser Robert Gibbs says in a new video released by the group We Are Change.

Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was the son of Anwar al-Awlaki, an al Qaeda propagandist killed by a U.S. drone a year ago. But the child was killed in a separate strike some two weeks after his father was killed. Gibbs wasn't entirely familiar with the situation, and didn't know that al-Awlaki's son was killed two weeks after his father was killed, a person familiar with his thinking at the time he was interviewed told HuffPost. We Are Change bills itself as a non-partisan media organization "working to expose corruption."

by Anonymousreply 9212/15/2012

[quote]HOUSE PANEL VOTES TO HOLD ERIC HOLDER IN CONTEMPT - BBG But wait, there's more:

[quote]HOLDER CALLS CONTEMPT VOTE `EXTRAORDINARY' AND UNNECESSARY

[quote]HOLDER CALLS CONTEMPT VOTE `ELECTION-YEAR TACTIC'

NEW YORK IN FUROR FOR SUSAN ALEXANDER

by Anonymousreply 9312/15/2012

MRS. ASTOR SAFE

by Anonymousreply 9412/15/2012

OH WE JUST WANTED TO TRACK THE GUNS!!!

by Anonymousreply 9512/16/2012

Yes, the lack of outrage over giving guns to known murderers is telling.

They want the sheeple disarmed. As long as the government has guns, the people need them more.

If every teacher was required to take gun safety courses, and carry a gun every day, no more school massacres would happen.

by Anonymousreply 9612/19/2012

[quote]If every teacher was required to take gun safety courses, and carry a gun every day, no more school massacres would happen.

Go talk to a few teachers and see how they feel about that, ya brain-damaged fuckwit.

We'll wait.

by Anonymousreply 9712/19/2012

R89 plus R91

You always call these things crazy but never offer any argument. Just "he doesn't follow what the media says, so he must be crazy".

That's not an argument you moron.

by Anonymousreply 9812/19/2012

[quote]You always call these things crazy but never offer any argument.

That's because you never offer any data or arguments to back up anything you say. I provide data where it's warranted; otherwise, I just laugh at you.

[quote]Just "he doesn't follow what the media says, so he must be crazy".

Nah, "he's really an idiot because he writes really stupid shit." Tell us again about gold climbing to $20,000!

[quote]That's not an argument you moron.

ROFL... Oh, the irony... As soon as you actually back up any of the shit you write, I'll do the same. Until then, I'll continue to laugh at you.

by Anonymousreply 9912/20/2012

Once again the troll at R99 just says "haha you're wrong" but never provides any evidence.

So sad. I'm sorry your teachers sucked so bad, and you were stupid enough to believe them.

by Anonymousreply 10012/20/2012

[quote]Once again the troll at R99 just says "haha you're wrong" but never provides any evidence.

Once again, the troll at R100 just insists that he's right but never provides any evidence.

[quote]So sad. I'm sorry your teachers sucked so bad, and you were stupid enough to believe them.

So sad. I'm sorry your teachers didn't teach you about critical thinking and that you believe everything you read on those conspiracy websites you frequent.

by Anonymousreply 10112/20/2012

R101

What evidence have you provided, besides an "appeal to authority"?

You haven't explained how the Federal Reserve can print 3 TRILLION dollars over the last 5 years and not cause major dislocations. You cannot explain how we can possibly repay 220 TRILLION in debts over the next 50 years. You have not explained how the massive rise in food and energy costs (and any Datalounge reader will agree with me that food, transport, and heating/cooling costs have risen dramatically in the last 10 years) isn't hurting the average person. You haven't explained how the massive bank bailouts have helped the average person, or hurt the average taxpayer.

In short, you have nothing but "he's crazy, nothing he says is right, blah fucking blah".

You're so full of shit your eyes, hair and teeth are brown.

Put up or shut up, troll.

by Anonymousreply 10212/20/2012

Here is an example of how wrong R101 really is.

The hot guy in the video spends an hour explaining, in detail, how fucked Japan, the EU and the US are due to the profligacy of our rulers, and how the massive money printing and bank bailouts are killing us.

by Anonymousreply 10312/20/2012

[quote]What evidence have you provided, besides an "appeal to authority"?

R102, what evidence have you provided, besides a "because I said so?"

[quote]You haven't explained how the Federal Reserve can print 3 TRILLION dollars over the last 5 years and not cause major dislocations.

You haven't explained why the Federal Reserve is going to cause "major dislocations" doing precisely what it has done dozens of times before, none of which times caused any "major dislocations,"

[quote]You cannot explain how we can possibly repay 220 TRILLION in debts over the next 50 years.

You cannot explain where that "220 TRILLION" figure comes from (a figure, by the way, that is total bullshit, since I do know where it came from).

[quote]You have not explained how the massive rise in food and energy costs isn't hurting the average person.

You have not, and can not, demonstrate that we have, in fact, had a "massive rise in food and energy costs" (this, too, of course, is completely false). Inflation has been entirely normal these past years.

[quote]You haven't explained how the massive bank bailouts have helped the average person, or hurt the average taxpayer.

You haven't explained how the massive bank bailouts, all of which were paid back, have hurt the average person, or hurt the average taxpayer.

[quote]In short, you have nothing but "he's crazy, nothing he says is right, blah fucking blah".

In short, you have nothing but "Fed this, bailout that, hyperinflation, blah fucking blah."

[quote]You're so full of shit your eyes, hair and teeth are brown.

ROFL.... What are you, five years old?

[quote]Put up or shut up, troll.

After you. You're the one making shit up.

by Anonymousreply 10412/20/2012

[quote]The hot guy in the video spends an hour explaining, in detail, how fucked Japan, the EU and the US are due to the profligacy of our rulers, and how the massive money printing and bank bailouts are killing us.

You really should stop visiting that website. You don't know enough about economics and finance to know the difference between fact and fantasy, between bullshit and reality. And you don't know enough to actually be able to discuss the crap you recycle here, nor defend it, other than to say, "because I told you so."

None of the predictions on that website have come true. None of your predictions have come true. You don't have any data to back up anything you write, which is why you always get your ass handed to you on these threads.

by Anonymousreply 10512/20/2012
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.