You know, some on the crazy left say the same things about Iraq and Afghanistan just being imperial wars of conquest or to build an oil pipeline etc. etc. If we follow your logic above, that this was some grand plan to get a law that appears to already be on the books (straw purchase law) passed, well, you sort of have to grant credibility to the more grandiose plans that are the real reasons we invaded. This ventures into the same realm as every other "massive cover up" government conspiracy theory, but it lacks any real motivation or hopeful end game.

No, I don't. They came up with a plan to 'track' straw purchasers by telling gun stores to sell to them on purpose, so that they could then track the guns into mexico for some reason they never wuite said. However they had NO plan in place to actually TRACK the guns, so they all fell into the Mexican underground, and some even made their way to the border where American law enforcement agents were killed. There was an IMMEDIATE coverup by BATF to keep the fact that the guns used in that killing were ones they had 'lost'. So, stupid or 'brilliant' plan by our lovely government, you can decide what you want. At a minimum, the people involved need to be behind bars. Instead, they get shifted around, moved to more obscure agencies and so on in the hopes that they don't rat out someone higher up.

The same banks they held hard negotiations with to MAKE those risky loans to begin with. Nothing like a little extortion to get your way.

 

No one forced banks to make those risky loans. The government didn't hold hard negotiations to create the derivatives market and the securitization of mortgages or force bond agencies to give garbage AAA ratings. Study after study after study have come to the same conclusion: CRA loans were a minor part of the problem, if at all, and Freddie & Fannie loans actually had significantly lower default rates than private sector loans. This crisis was created by the banking industry.

 

Anyway, that doesn't really have anything to do with portraying Waters' comments as a call for the elimination of banks simply for the sake of eliminating banks.

Also, a big CYA after a program fails horribly with really bad consequences doesn't necessarily invoke a conspiracy beyond "we don't want to look bad and want to minimize political damage"

I'll remember that once Obama is out of office. We'll see if you feel the same when there are Republicans behind something like that.

No, I don't. They came up with a plan to 'track' straw purchasers by telling gun stores to sell to them on purpose, so that they could then track the guns into mexico for some reason they never wuite said. However they had NO plan in place to actually TRACK the guns, so they all fell into the Mexican underground, and some even made their way to the border where American law enforcement agents were killed. There was an IMMEDIATE coverup by BATF to keep the fact that the guns used in that killing were ones they had 'lost'. So, stupid or 'brilliant' plan by our lovely government, you can decide what you want. At a minimum, the people involved need to be behind bars. Instead, they get shifted around, moved to more obscure agencies and so on in the hopes that they don't rat out someone higher up.

I'm not defending the wisdom of the program or the lack of culpebility for the people involved. What I'm laughing at is that this somehow means it was all intentionally done to shift public opinion on gun rights, and that someone who doesn't accept this extraordinary assertion is "sucking the progressive cock"

 

you'll also have to explain to me how the "bush let it happen!" 9/11 troofer movement claims are logically any different from what you're putting forth here. Both claim coverups for what appears to be government incompetence but it really a mask for a subversive plot to get the public behind a political or ideological goal.

Edited September 7, 201114 yr by StrangeSox

I'll remember that once Obama is out of office. We'll see if you feel the same when there are Republicans behind something like that.

I don't like Obama, and I don't like dumb partisan assertions of grand conspiracies that don't make any sense.

Guys, to be fair, the program he's talking about was something of a complete and utter disaster of the worst order.

 

it really is

Obama trying to ship the last US manufacturing job overseas

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/07...-jobs-overseas/

 

 

anyone watch the GOP debate tonight?

anyone watch the GOP debate tonight?

 

I dvr it, and watching it now.. so far, I'm trying not to laugh too much..

I really like Huntsman over everyone..

 

Perry looked overmatched, I don't think he answered one question more like deflecting and speaking on what he wanted to talk about. Out of Death Penalty, which he was very proud, to "play God" with others lives... which for the record, I don't know which side of the coin I am on that.. Does killing the killer, really make justice for society?

 

I think the moderators did a bad job not following up with the question they asked.

 

The Romney Tax Question was just bad on his part..Because someone is poor, that means they don't support the troops... That's just bad overall.

 

Newt, How long can he try and keep blowing the Reagan myth before America wakes up?

 

Paul, just looked more Naive on allot of topics

 

And the others, don't really matter.. they won't be around in 5 months IMO. I also thought being on MSNSC, they might ask some hard questions.. But, alas they didn't.

I'm not even wasting my time watching it. By the time I get to vote there will be either one or two people left, and if history is any indicator, it won't be who I really want to win.

I can't seem to recall, have you posted your preferred candidate?

I can't seem to recall, have you posted your preferred candidate?

 

Like I said, I haven't even wasted my time yet. It is a complete waste of time.

Like I said, I haven't even wasted my time yet. It is a complete waste of time.

Interesting, I didn't figure this coming from you. You don't think the primary phase is just as important, if not more so, than the general? The more people don't give a s***, the worse the candidates are that will come out of these primaries.

 

Interesting, I didn't figure this coming from you. You don't think the primary phase is just as important, if not more so, than the general? The more people don't give a s***, the worse the candidates are that will come out of these primaries.

Problem is unless you are in one of the first 4 or 5 primaries, your primary vote rarely counts anymore. F*ck Iowa and New Hampshire, why do they always get to decide who I get to vote for? (rhetorical question)

Problem is unless you are in one of the first 4 or 5 primaries, your primary vote rarely counts anymore. F*ck Iowa and New Hampshire, why do they always get to decide who I get to vote for? (rhetorical question)

I personally believe that it is much more complex than that. Participation in the political process can be a lot more than voting.

 

Not that I don't see your point, I agree that the primary system setup is a bit ridiculous. Need to have a rotation of some kind.

 

I just wanted to put this somewhere, this seemed like a good enough place. Gee, who woulda thunk it?

 

The number of Americans filing new claims for jobless benefits rose unexpectedly last week, further evidence of an anemic employment picture just hours before President Barack Obama unveils a plan on job creation in a major address to Congress

 

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/New-jobless-...set=&ccode=

Interesting, I didn't figure this coming from you. You don't think the primary phase is just as important, if not more so, than the general? The more people don't give a s***, the worse the candidates are that will come out of these primaries.

 

 

Problem is unless you are in one of the first 4 or 5 primaries, your primary vote rarely counts anymore. F*ck Iowa and New Hampshire, why do they always get to decide who I get to vote for? (rhetorical question)

 

Pretty much that. I think Indiana ranks in the middle 30's out of 50 on when we have our primaries. I have never voted in a meaningful national primary, at 37 years old.

 

I am working on speech writing for a mayoral campaign and stuff at the council level here locally. I have tried to convince our county chair to get Lugar up here in addition to the guy running against him. I have met with Walorski already, in addition to a few of the other state level officer holders and candidates. Once the governors stuff gets cranked up, I'll be elbows deep into that too.

 

Nationally? There is no point.

I just wanted to put this somewhere, this seemed like a good enough place. Gee, who woulda thunk it?

 

 

 

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/New-jobless-...set=&ccode=

 

Since expectations of the surveyed market people were for a lower number, um, yeah, it was unexpected. I think maybe you guys don't read the articles you are commenting on. Each week, there are forecasts put out by market news vendors like briefing.com, where they survey knowledgeable market people (who by the way, are a lot more likely to vote red than blue) to ask what the number will be. If the number was expected to drop, but actually increased - as it did today - that is called "unexpected".

 

You are reading something into this which isn't there.

 

Pretty much that. I think Indiana ranks in the middle 30's out of 50 on when we have our primaries. I have never voted in a meaningful national primary, at 37 years old.

 

I am working on speech writing for a mayoral campaign and stuff at the council level here locally. I have tried to convince our county chair to get Lugar up here in addition to the guy running against him. I have met with Walorski already, in addition to a few of the other state level officer holders and candidates. Once the governors stuff gets cranked up, I'll be elbows deep into that too.

 

Nationally? There is no point.

Indiana's primary counted on the Dem side in 2008.

Pretty much that. I think Indiana ranks in the middle 30's out of 50 on when we have our primaries. I have never voted in a meaningful national primary, at 37 years old.

I am working on speech writing for a mayoral campaign and stuff at the council level here locally. I have tried to convince our county chair to get Lugar up here in addition to the guy running against him. I have met with Walorski already, in addition to a few of the other state level officer holders and candidates. Once the governors stuff gets cranked up, I'll be elbows deep into that too.

 

Nationally? There is no point.

 

 

Indiana's primary counted on the Dem side in 2008.

 

And then there was Jimmy Hoffa ordering his goon subordinates to take those Tea Party "sons-of-b****es" out. Obama, of course, was proud of him.

 

FWIW this report originated on Fox News as a intentionally edited-to-be-misleading quote and and was carried by the MSM reports with the same editing.

FWIW this report originated on Fox News as a intentionally edited-to-be-misleading quote and and was carried by the MSM reports with the same editing.

I see zero difference between this and the faux outrage over Palin's use of targets on districts. Pick a position and stick with it (not you, per se). Either the rhetoric is bad, or it doesn't matter. If you b****ed about Palin's use of imagery and had no worries about the selective editing of content, then you can't b**** now. If McCain had to say sorry for something that was said prior to one of his speeches, then so should Obama.

I see zero difference between this and the faux outrage over Palin's use of targets on districts. Pick a position and stick with it (not you, per se). Either the rhetoric is bad, or it doesn't matter. If you b****ed about Palin's use of imagery and had no worries about the selective editing of content, then you can't b**** now. If McCain had to say sorry for something that was said prior to one of his speeches, then so should Obama.

Actually, I DO see a difference. The Teamsters have a history of violence against people with different views than they have. Palin just has a history of violence against wolves.

Leaving the opportunistic over-reaction to violent metaphors aside for a moment, you're ignoring that Fox intentionally edited the clip by removing a sentence from the middle in order to forward their narrative of "union thugs" by completely removing the context for the metaphor. That's a pretty egregious violation of ethical standards for reporting.

 

The Palin thing stuck out because her map specifically called out Giffords with a cross-hair. Having that come to mind and saying "hey, maybe we should be a little more careful with violent metaphors" isn't exactly unreasonable, but the "OMG! Palin's stupidity got giffords shot! End all violent metaphors now!" reaction was dumb.