Free for All: 06/20/12

What’s on your mind?

About these ads

119 Responses to “Free for All: 06/20/12”

  1. Was there a FAST & FURIOUS coverup? Sure starting to smell like it . Obama exerts Nixonian/Clintonian “executive privledge” for the documents showing what lead to the DOJ letter sent to Congress that turned out to have been full of lies and was rescinded. Today Congress is to vote Holder in contempt for not turning over the “privledged” docs. Obama stalling to get by election? Worked for Nixon.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/20/house-republicans-tee-up-imminent-contempt-vote-against-holder/

  2. Oama isn’t expected to disbelieve his grandfather’s stories.

  3. No more than is Elizabeth Warren?

  4. I guess we shouldn’t be expected to believe Obama’s stories?

  5. NOW with Alex Wagner is tolerable today.

  6. So is my carbuncle.

  7. NOW has improved greatly. Alex has calmed down and settled in to her role.

  8. mlong5000 Says:

    We have now heard more about about Fast and Furious in the last few hours from the MSM then we have in over a year since this story first broke…..now why is that why would the News media avoid a story involving 200 murders including 2 boarder agents and a flawed Obama DOJ gun running operation?….we know more about Mitt Romney’s damn dog then this clusterfluke by Obama and Holder.

  9. savefarris Says:

    Politifact Isn’t Even Trying to Hide The Bias Anymore, Vol. LXXVI:

    Sen. Portman (R-OH) claims Federal Government employment increased under Obama.

    Politifact researches and discovers:
    Feb 2009: 2.8M Federal Workers
    May 2012: 2.819M Federal Workers

    Their conclusion?
    “Portman’s claim rates False”

    http://www.politifact.com/ohio/statements/2012/jun/20/rob-portman/rob-portman-says-there-has-been-substantial-increa/

  10. Farris You forgot the words “substantial increase” wee the ones that Portman used. An increase of less than 1% is not substantial; It’s tiny but that doesn’t really matter does it.

  11. ^^wee > were Sorry

  12. C’est d’accord

  13. savefarris Says:

    Portman’s exact quote: “we’ve actually seen an increase in federal government jobs, and pretty substantially.”

    The first part of his statement: %100 uncategorically you-couldn’t-disagree-even-if-you-tried-(although-Politifact-has-tried) true.

    In order to disagree with the secondary clause, you’ve got to get into the weeds on the Webster’s definition of the word substantial. There’s no set numerical definition. So where does PolitiFact get the authority to automatically define and decide what is “substantial” and what isn’t? (Pre-But: I’ll bet those 19,000 new employees consider the rise in Federal Employment to be pretty substantial to them.)

    PolitiFact could have decided:
    * well, employment is up. Therefore, true.
    *employment’s up, but not by much. mostly true.
    *employment’s up, but the state employment (which Portman didn’t even mention) is down. half true.
    *employment is up. true but false.

    But no: they went with false. Because they can’t dare have a Republican caught telling the truth against Obama in an election year.

  14. Politifact’s criteria is ridiculous, and is used against Democrats, too. You’re finding commies in the closet again, Farris.

  15. @mlong The MSM has covered it extensively. Megyn Kelly covered it so much, her head almost expoloded. Andrea Mitchell and Tamron Hall have also given it a ton of coverage.

    I only watch CNN when I’m needing a cure for my insomnia.

  16. Mitt Romney: “The President doesn’t know when to decide to send jobs overseas.” Yes. He said that.

  17. libertyandjustice Says:

    For sure, both sides of the political spectrum have in the past played fast and loose (lies) with the facts. But has anyone else noticed the string of lies used by the left to fit the preconceived narrative template that they are so devoted to. I admit I’m conservative so I might not notice this practice as much on the conservative side so please enlighten me if you liberals can site similar recent examples from your prospective. Quickly off the top of my head, these are just some recent examples.

    1. The liberal NBC media doctors a tape to make Zimmerman appear to be a racist. NBC never apologizes/corrects to it’s own audience on-air. Some devotees may still believe the edited racist tape.
    2. NYT, comes up with a new ethnic description to imply racism “White Hispanic”
    3. Attorney general Holder claims before congress that the previous attorney general was briefed on fast and furious and the program and blames the Bush Administration. 48 hours Holder withdraws/revises the statement as a case of miss speaking. Liberal media ignores the story.
    4. Andre Mitchel, edits a tape to make Romney look like a fool (no apology). Displaying the arrogance of her bias and the disregard for the truth.
    5. A new biography on Obama documents dozens of lies in Obama autobiography and the author says that normal and no big deal. Liberal media hardly reports on it. Nobody in the liberal media asks Obama about it.
    6. Elizabeth Warren MA. Senate candidate) claims she is a minority (American Indian) on all types of Academic documents (without any factual basis/evidence for the claim). She obviously get’s affirmative action preferences assisting her career path/hiring/promotions and she refuses to discuss it or apologize for it. Yet she is sill lionized in the liberal media.
    7. Out of the blue, George Stephanopoulos brings up the absurd notion that Republicans want to outlaw contraception and the Liberal media makes up out of whole cloth that there is a Republican war on woman. (apparently trumpeting a Democratic talking point)

  18. MSNBC spends all day hyping this vote… when it finally happens, MSNBC cannot even run an on screen bulletin.

    This network is a complete joke.

  19. savefarris Says:

    8. Dr. Lawrence O’Donnell (PhD, Board Certified) spends a segment on his show snarking about Ann Romney using horses to treat her MS. 12 hours earlier, the Today Show’s in-house Dr. (Nancy Snyderman) claimed it was “absolutely” a treatment for MS during a discussion about Jack Osbourne. (http://todayentertainment.today.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/18/12272253-jack-osbourne-reveals-he-has-multiple-sclerosis?lite)

  20. I’m glad I ruined his morning yesterday.

  21. I already explained this. LOD didn’t ridicule Ann’s treatment for MS, he ridiculed Mitt for inserting her condition into a discussion about buying a horse for someone else to ride in competition.

  22. How’s that Executive Privilege tasting today? The way the GOP treated the Attorney General was disgraceful. They’ve lost all respect for high office.

  23. The ghost of John Mitchell is laughing at you.

  24. I think we’re all enjoying the parallels with Nixon. Leaving aside the uncommonality of dead bodies, of course.

  25. He’s the Attorney General of the United States. He didn’t run this stupid operation, and he shut it down when he discovered it. The treatment he has received this week is disgusting. The GOP has become the party of disdain for anything that doesn’t go their way, and they’re willing to disrespect and shout at everybody. I’m ashamed to say I was ever Republican.

  26. libertyandjustice Says:

    Ha! Do you think the reporters at the WP are looking for a
    Deep Throat or a good excuse? Nope, their all still up in Alaska vetting Palin.

  27. libertyandjustice Says:

    There not their, sorry

  28. They’re not there or their.

  29. Something rotten happened in the creation of the “coverup letter” full of lies that the DOJ sent to Congress that evidence forced them to retract. The documents in question and now asserted by executive privledge would shed light on the creation of that letter of deceit. Holder is not turning them over because the stink of coverup leads to someone important in DOJ and maybe the White House. They are hiding something important.

  30. Darrell Issa and John Kornyn are grandstanding partisan hack thugs, and should resign immediately for dishonoring Congress.

  31. Name calling by someone who is talking out his behind.

    DOJ sent a letter to Congress in Feb 2011 denying they “let guns walk” and Holder and Obama made statements they knew nothing about the program. In December, as forced by testimony, DOJ had to withdraw their letter. Almost a year later. People knew, lied to cover it up. AND they are still at it.

  32. That the AG shut down the operation is irrelevant (although he claimed in testimony that he hadn’t known about it). That the AG has submitted thousands of documents is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the House of Representatives subpoenaed specific documents that pertain to Fast & Furious that the AG has refused to turn over or to provide any explanation of why he will not.

    That pretty much defines “contempt of Congress.”

  33. And there is a mom and dad of a dead Federal Agent who want answers.

  34. Where the investigation of the ATF agents? Why is Kornyn shouting “Resign!” while babbling about voter fraud? This farce has nothing to do with what actually happened. It’s a witch hunt against the Attorney General and the President.

    Enjoy the ride, thugs. When it’s your time to be in office again, you’re gonna wish you hadn’t gone down this road..

  35. Moron idiot name-calling thug.

  36. Ooh, empty threats and name-calling. If it were me, I’d guess it was that time of the month.

  37. Y’all getting lazy. Every time I go after those thugs you support, you boo hoo about “name calling”. Boo HOO.

  38. “Thug”must be your Reader’s Digest Word-of-the-Day.

  39. And always the presumption that Dems haven’t ever done the same thing that is accused, and then some. Oh, but they were just too nice. Until now. I’m shaking.

  40. “Thug” is what comes up every time I see Issa’s stupid face. Btw, I would appreciate if you guys could differentiate between name-calling of people on this blog, and calling politicians thugs or whatever. This catch-all “Joe calls people names” thing is not acceptable.

  41. Republicans often joined in when Democrats smelled a rat, be it Watergate or Iran-Contra. With today’s Democrats it’s protect our guys no matter what.

  42. Unions use thug tactics. Like that language?

  43. NBC News had only mentioned Fast and Furious only once until today. That ignored all kinds of testimony sessions by Holder and his crew.

  44. Ah. If I don’t like someone’s face, I should call him/her a “thug”. Good rule. I’ll remember that the next time Debbie Wasserman Schultz opens her yap.

  45. Unions use thug tactics. Like that language?

    I couldn’t possibly care less. Yelling about politicians and such is part of the game. Personal name-calling of fellow commentors is quite different, and I’m tired of that not being specified in relation to myself.

  46. Oh please, I don’t literally have a problem with Issa’s FACE. It’s the moron BEHIND it. Geez.

  47. I suppose we should be happy that this administration wants to keep some things secret, since national security clearly isn’t a priority.

  48. libertyandjustice Says:

    They’re all racists ! Right Joe, Ha!

  49. erich500 Says:

    “I suppose we should be happy that this administration wants to keep some things secret, since national security clearly isn’t a priority.”

    Zing.

    The problem started when the Justice Department lied about their knowledge of the operation.

    To be sure, lots of politics being played (duh) but there’s something stinking here in the Justice Department. Somebody is either obstructing justice or screwed up. Maybe both.

    There’s some legitimate questions for Congress even if they are a bunch of boneheads.

  50. savefarris Says:

    LOD didn’t ridicule Ann’s treatment for MS

    I know you WISH that were so, but it’s simply not true. From the transcript:

    “And there are a lot of things you can do to try to deal with MS. But, come on, dressage does not appear in any of the more traditional courses of treatment.”

    C’mon joe: don’t pull an Andrea Mitchell…

  51. savefarris Says:

    He didn’t run this stupid operation, and he shut it down when he discovered it.

    joe would have us belive that the Obama Administration is fighting TOOTH AND NAIL to prevent the release of documents that would absolve them of any liability and would, in fact, show them to be the heroes of the story.

    So, in your world, Obama claimed Executive Privelege … as a form of modesty?!?

  52. erich500 Says:

    It would have been nice to have learned that Obama blew his stack when he learned about this farce. “I want some heads” type of response.

    But just as with these leaks about the cyberwarfare strategy against Iran, he seems pretty laid back about it.

    Not good.

  53. He hasn’t blown his stack since Gates got busted cussing out a cop. #beersummit

  54. erich500 Says:

    Yeah, his responses to this, the cyberwarfare leaks and the drone list/selection story has been curiously passive.

    The old dog that didn’t bark?

  55. When liberals have their prepackaged ‘victim’, that’s all you hear about. Don’t try to divert them with a discussion of the fact that there’s a bogus political-attack going on, because then you’re ignoring their precious ‘victim’. Here, you have multiple victims, including two border-agents, one of whom is barely mentioned. Just an observation. I’m full of ‘em.

  56. erich500 Says:

    “Here, you have multiple victims, including two border-agents,”

    And a number of dead Mexican citizens.

    This operation was insane. It was too big from the start, then got out of hand and they lost track of the weapons. And nobody said “Stop!”. Everybody was covering their fannies.

    The Obama Administration has no one to blame for this except themselves.

    What gives government a bad name, liberal friends, is not conservative propaganda: it’s things like this. You guys should be the first to scream about it.

  57. savefarris Says:

    Let’s be fair, larry.

    Just recently, Obama blew his stack when a reporter asked him a question at a press conference…

  58. I don’t appreciate the implication that I don’t care about the dead agents. That’s offensive.

  59. savefarris Says:

    We don’t appreciate the implication that we’re unrepentent racists just because we happen to disagree with whatever the Democratic Party is pushing that day.

    It’s equally offensive.

  60. I never said that Farris. Your implication that I called an entire party racist is bullshyte.

  61. The talking heads on cable news should quit with the “constitutional crisis” bs. It isn’t anywhere near “crisis” stage.

    -Enjoy the ride, thugs. When it’s your time to be in office again, you’re gonna wish you hadn’t gone down this road..-

    Washington Post, Feb 14, 2008: The House yesterday escalated a constitutional showdown with President Bush, approving the first-ever contempt of Congress citations against West Wing aides and reigniting last year’s battle over the scope of executive privilege.

  62. Joe is blind in his left eye.

  63. Joe speaks in specifics (and in the third person). Farris uses sweeping generalities to lie about what I’ve said.

  64. Larry likes people who speak in the third person.

  65. erich500 Says:

    What we got heah is a failure to communicate.

    Erich is not original.

  66. mlong5000 Says:

    “Attorney General Eric Holder’s refusal to fully disclose the documents associated with Operation Fast and Furious and President Obama’s assertion of executive privilege serves to compound this tragedy. It denies the Terry family and the American people the truth. Our son,Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, was killed by members of a Mexican drug cartel armed with weapons from this failed Justice Department gun trafficking investigation. For more than 18 months we have been asking our federal government for justice and accountability. The documents
    sought by the House Oversight Committee and associated with Operation Fast and Furious should be produced and turned over to the committee.Our son lost his life protecting this nation, and it is very disappointing that we are now faced with an administration that seems more concerned with protecting themselves rather than revealing the truth behind Operation Fast and Furious.”

    Statement from Brian’s parents, Josephine Terry and Kent Terry Sr.

    Just to remind Joe that what he calls grandstanding the Terry’s call a search for justice.

  67. lonestar77 Says:

    Has anyone seen any network other than FNC report the reaction from the Terry family? I haven’t. Seems that would lead the coverage if the administration was Republican.

  68. maybe if Terry had worn a hoodie?

  69. Rep. Bachmann, appearing on Greta’s programme, asserts that neither a common man nor the POTUS is “above the law”. While I like the sound of that, she’s wrong. POTUS can do many things that the rest of us can’t, and that is as it should be.

  70. lonestar77 Says:

    You mean the potus doesn’t have to take his shoes off before he boards a plane?

  71. He doesn’t need to be kind and rewind.

  72. He can remove tags from mattresses?

  73. He can spit into the wind.

  74. He can pull the mask off that old Lone Ranger .

  75. He can’t jump, but no one says anything.

  76. He can eat one Lays potato chip.

  77. He believes he ate the whole thing.

  78. Thank you, George Will, God save us from liberal revisionist bullsh|t. Including Jeb Bush.

    http://hotair.com/archives/2012/06/18/will-the-party-that-produced-four-bush-nominations-is-hardly-extreme/

  79. This new version that rejects all compromise, and announces its main goal as a body is to defeat the incumbent President, is most certainly extreme.

  80. This president doesn’t even talk to the Repubs in congress, so there’s not been much offered to make compromises over.

  81. Blah blah. They’re so unlike Reid, Pelosi et al. Please. It’s just another excuse for your President to do what he can’t do legislatively. You’ll enjoy it when Romney gives it back to you.

  82. I’ll enjoy it when those jerks are sent packing. I’m disgusted with this Tea Party BS.

  83. Looks as though the so-called ‘moderates’ will get the boot first. Too bad.

  84. Love that Tea Party.

  85. Rachel is talking about some weird theory that the anti-2nd Amendment Eric Holder ran Fast & Furious as a way to make people scared of gun proliferation, then they could take away your guns. Is this really a thing?

  86. lonestar77 Says:

    ^ I guess you’d have to ask Eric Holder. Good luck with that. He’s not the most transparent person evah.

  87. Nice dodge, LS. The question is, is this something the nutosphere actually believes?

  88. Yes, I’ve heard several variations on that theory. Plausibile, I suppose, but I’m not aware of any hard facts that support it.

  89. Plausible? It’s laughable. You’ve gotta be some kinda whacked to believe a President and an Attorney General would do such a thing.

  90. mlong5000 Says:

    “You’ve gotta be some kinda whacked to believe a President and an Attorney General would do such a thing.”

    Well Joe when they try to hide things we have to wonder how close to the truth those whack jobs are.

  91. Somewhere I saw a non-nutso piece about this but can’t find it. It was at least a year ago and described a scenario in which a strategy designed to document how the legal gun trade in the U.S. is arming the drug thugs across the border had suddenly gotten out-of-hand, resulting in the murders of some Americans and also some of the guns were traced to multiple incidents including the killing of a U.S.Border Patrol agent. The intent was only to document; the murders were an unintended consequence.

    There’s a whole bunch of truly nutso stuff swirling around about it, too.

  92. Arming thugs for “the greater good” has been a US foreign policy mainstay, regardless of party in power, since forever. I have no idea whether or not there’s anything like that involved with “Fast & Furious” but the idea is anything but crazy.

    Names usually mean something. Why did they call it “Fast & Furious”?

  93. Since the project started with a Republican administration, and apparently was a harebrained scheme of the ATF, I would say trying to label it a bizarre anti-2nd Amendment endeavor is more than a little nutso.

  94. lonestar77 Says:

    Thanks, Joe! It’s not something I’ve heard much about amongst my roving band of nutosphereites. But, I think Issa may have actually brought it up at some point. Anyway, I’m sure it’s something you can find if you try hard enough but it’s not something that’s actively discussed or seriously thought about. It’s typical Maddow. She projects little things from one person onto everybody to the right of Pelosi.

    Personally, I wouldn’t put it past them & it wouldn’t surprise me if it were true. But, I have no reason to actually believe it is true.

  95. libertyandjustice Says:

    Thanks to David Cohen I now understand what the liberals are doing. (Please see my list or post, above, of 7 recent liberal media lies)

    “But perhaps I’m being too hard on Mitchell. Perhaps she was merely doing what some on the left are wont to do: rearranging the “smaller truth” — i.e., the facts — in the service of the “larger truth” as they define it. In this case, the “larger truth” is that Mitt Romney is indeed out of touch”

    George Orwell could not of said it better. God help us!

  96. Hey, watch that name-calling, idiot moron. My point is that the ATF started this before Obama and Holder were there, not that Bush knew about it. It’s pretty clear this was only known to the ATF until recently.

  97. dropping “Bush” name is bush league. Doesn’t mater when ATF thought it up. They got a go to implement it under Obama and Holder admin, and WHO WAS THAT we want to know.

  98. Larry, you’ve lost track. I’m arguing against the silly “Obama/Holder ran it to prove we need gun control” theory. It was an ATF gig started before this administration was in office.

  99. savefarris Says:

    Sorry joe, but you’re wrong again.

    Operation Wide Receiver (“Let’s track the guns we sell to cartels”) was started and stopped under Bush.

    Operation Fast & Furious (“Let’s sell guns to the cartels and … well, hell, who can plan that far ahead?”) was dreamed up and implemented under Obama/Holder.

  100. Get back to me when you can prove either of those similar projects was instigated by anyone other than the ATF.

  101. savefarris Says:

    Here’s your proof right here: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-20/obama-asserts-executive-privilege-on-u-s-gun-probe-documents.html

    Obama can’t claim executive privelege if this was wholy owned and operated by the ATF. In order to qualify for protection, the priveleged communication must either come from or be directed to the White House. Otherwise, privelege doesn’t apply.

  102. Uhh..the whole point of the story is the debate over when Holder knew about the project, and what he did about it. Nobody denies that he was eventually involved.

  103. savefarris Says:

    So again, you’re making the claim that Holder is risking Contempt and Impeachment to withhold documents that show him shutting down this program and looking like the hero.

    Riiiiiiiiight…

  104. A reasonable possibility was when the story first broke DOJ decided they could stonewall and sent the letter denying gun-walking to Congress (Feb 2011, letter withdrawn Dec 2011). That communications formatting that strategy exist and are being withheld is the issue at hand. The way to refute that possibility is to release the documents. Unless they have something to hide there is little reason not to.

  105. It’s political grandstanding, and Obama called Issa’s bluff. It’s that simple.

  106. It’s a third class burglary. It’s that simple.

  107. Neither the ATF nor any other non-military agency will conduct an operation entirely on its own. With Fast & Furious, the controlling authority would be the US Attorney of that district… who works for Holder.

  108. So far I haven’t seen any thorough reporting on the use of executive privilege. They’ll all say that this is Obama’s first, that Bush used it six times and Clinton fourteen, but they don’t take the two minutes needed to report on what those were about or how they ended up.

    Bush used one to shield the Clinton administration and, specifically, Janet Reno. Another had to do with Cheney’s “Energy” meetings and he won that battle easily. Another was the Pat Tillman cover-up which never made any sense to me in how that qualified. Then there was the executive privilege claimed about the US attorney firings and such.. since those attorneys work “at the pleasure of the president” it made perfect sense to me how this would fall outside the purview of congressional oversight.

    This Fast & Furious assertion of executive privilege seems closer to the one Bush used to cover-up the Pat Tillman fiasco. Doesn’t seem right to me but time will tell, I hope.

  109. Exerting Executive Privilege is like going to war without declaring so: People are gonna holler about it, but that privilege will stand..that war will be fought.

    Issa and Co. demanded Holder’s resignation, then set up a Contempt Of Congress vote. They didn’t think the President would push back. Surprise!

  110. Just pushing this passed the election. Nixon did the same thing in 1972. He resigned in 1974 after Supreme Court ended his final attempt at executive privilege was overturned. Fortunatly Obama won’t win another term.

  111. Woodstein started with the burglars, and followed the chain. Issa has only one target: Holder. Where’s the investigation of the crew running the actual program? There isn’t one because there’s no political payoff in it.

  112. How silly. The committee has been going at this case for years with Holder giving false information from the getgo. With the mindset of Joe, Watergate would have been over at the arrest of the burgers. As is usual, Democrat phonies:
    IT’S OFTEN NOT THE INITAL CRIME BUT THE COVERUP
    that’s the problem.
    WHAT DID HOLDER KNOW and WHEN…

  113. burgers should be hotdogs

  114. savefarris Says:

    Well, at least joe has finally realized the “Bush did it” spin is a loser. But would he mind passing along that word to his compadres at the next “Secret Liberal Cabal” meeting? That storyline is about as plausible as claiming Clinton started the Iraq War. Because, you know, he lobbed a couple of cruise missles over there once…

  115. I never said Bush did it. Are you mentally incapable of following a narrative?

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 227 other followers

%d bloggers like this: