Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Fast and FuriousFollow

#27 Jun 20 2012 at 8:30 PM Rating: Good
******
49,831 posts
gbaji wrote:
If a republican AG were doing this, I'd also be demanding answers.
"If I had the money, I'd relocate my family to Texas." Easy to say, and you actually might, but you've (and I in my initial sentence in this post) behaved/posted in a manner that wouldn't get anyone to trust that claim.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#28 Jun 20 2012 at 8:38 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I'm reminded of Gbaji's behavior during the whole Plame thing and how he eventually just started insisting that Fitzgerald's case was all political and now I just laugh when he pretends that he'd approach this from a non-partisan standpoint if the parties were reversed.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#29 Jun 20 2012 at 8:55 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
On their websites. Not on their evening news shows. Kind of a big difference, don't you think?

Right. One is easy to check when a blog tells you there's never been a story, the other one is much more difficult to verify. I suppose it makes sense that a news outlet would put out 135 stories but then be sure to super-secret-never-tell-anyone on the news though. Makes sense Smiley: nod


Do you think that every story that appears on a new agencies web site also appears on their live news broadcast that day? Cause that's kind of impossible.

The point is that it's cheap and easy to put a story on the website. It costs much more to put it on the air, but you get a much broader audience. And traditionally, scandals of this nature tend to get massive media airplay. But this one has gotten very very little.

Quote:
Also lulz at conservative cry-fests that are forced to say "Well, except CBS News which broke the story and won an award for their coverage" while going on about how the "media" refuses to cover the story. Who knew CBS was no longer the scary "mainstream media"?


Really? So the fact that the other two major news agencies ignored the story just doesn't matter? You're not a paid operative of the Democratic party Joph, so why are you making such effort to spin this? I know it may be shocking to you to believe that conservatives appreciate when a news agency (well, one person at one news agency) buck the liberal circled wagons and actually writes a story that everyone should be writing. But that speaks more about conservatives willing to give credit than credit is due than any sort of accomplishment among the media as a whole. I'm not sure why you think that is funny. It's an indictment of just how f'ed in the head your "side" is.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#30 Jun 20 2012 at 8:58 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I'm reminded of Gbaji's behavior during the whole Plame thing and how he eventually just started insisting that Fitzgerald's case was all political and now I just laugh when he pretends that he'd approach this from a non-partisan standpoint if the parties were reversed.


Um.. Except that in that case it was all political. Fitzgerald knew who the leak was before he even started the investigation. WTF? You just don't bother to even think about what you're saying, do you? That is pretty much the worst example you could have come up with. Wow. Just... wow.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#31 Jun 20 2012 at 9:00 PM Rating: Good
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,646 posts
The hypocrisy dripping out of all of gbajis posts would be more amusing if his posts were shorter.
#32 Jun 20 2012 at 9:03 PM Rating: Good
******
49,831 posts
Nah, the ones he's desperately trying to prove his ability to be nonpartisan are good sized.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#33 Jun 20 2012 at 9:17 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Do you think that every story that appears on a new agencies web site also appears on their live news broadcast that day? Cause that's kind of impossible.

No, but nice strawman?

Quote:
But this one has gotten very very little.

So you really, really want everyone to believe.

Quote:
So the fact that the other two major news agencies ignored the story just doesn't matter?

They didn't.

Quote:
why are you making such effort to spin this?

Says the guy who started the thread by crying about how "the media" isn't reporting this... I understand you were told your talking points and recited them and now have to stand fast to them truth be damned and say things like "135 news stories don't count because it's not what I say it has to be to count!" but you'd be better off just quietly dropping it than repeatedly showing how wrong you were. Hey, maybe next time you're told no one ever reported on it, actually check it out yourself instead of parroting the "fact" and looking stupid.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#34 Jun 20 2012 at 9:20 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Um.. Except that in that case it was all political. Fitzgerald knew who the leak was before he even started the investigation. WTF? You just don't bother to even think about what you're saying, do you? That is pretty much the worst example you could have come up with. Wow. Just... wow.

*snrk* Thanks... Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#35 Jun 20 2012 at 9:20 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,518 posts
Does it blow a hole in gbaji's lack of media argument if I heard this exact story on ABC's nighttime news as I was reading this thread?

When I saw the title of this thread, "Man, Vin Diesel is making *another* sequel?" was *not* the first thought to come to mind. It was the second.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#36 Jun 20 2012 at 11:00 PM Rating: Excellent
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,646 posts
Debalic wrote:
Does it blow a hole in gbaji's lack of media argument if I heard this exact story on ABC's nighttime news as I was reading this thread?


And on All Things Considered on my way home in the car.
#37 Jun 21 2012 at 12:00 AM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
*****
15,952 posts
Read the OP article link. The first legitimate reason I can think of to suppress documents about the "Fast and Furious" operations is that it would endanger undercover law enforcement agents still involved with the drug cartel and gun traders. Redacting their names may or may not help that.

The second and more believable reason, at least if this was in Britain, is that the documents would reveal too much undercover police procedure. Even in trials by jury, undercover police are not to be asked WHERE they observed a witness from, because that blows police methods. They can only be asked WHAT they observed of the witnesses' behaviour. Even if the undervover police officer was in the same room as the witness, and fully visible to the witness.

Edited, Jun 21st 2012 2:09am by Aripyanfar
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#38 Jun 21 2012 at 6:23 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,595 posts
gbaji wrote:
Since there's been very very little discussion of this (shocking, I know!), and some interesting developments occurred today, I figured I'd start a thread on the subject.


I've been following this story for some time now and have been somewhat surprised both by the lack of media coverage ....
I only can get to here and any bit of credibility I may have decided to allow you for the day escapes from existence.

One little liberal rags reporting on Fast and Furious.









Edited, Jun 21st 2012 3:40pm by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#39 Jun 21 2012 at 7:05 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
"No media coverage!" has been diluted to "Well, sure there's tons of print coverage and CBS won an award for its broadcast coverage and ABC has been covering it (but we say not enough) and it's been on all the cable news networks but we're pretty sure this one show on NBC (we're not counting any other news coverage on NBC or its affiliates) didn't cover it because... LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS!!!!"
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#40 Jun 21 2012 at 7:14 AM Rating: Good
******
49,831 posts
There's been a few articles over the last week in the paper, but print is dead so it doesn't count.

I'm guessing Daily Show doesn't count either.

Edited, Jun 21st 2012 9:31am by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#41 Jun 21 2012 at 9:21 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,407 posts
I'm assuming if I heard about it through the mainstream media months ago, they did a good enough job of covering it.

Bigdaddyjug wrote:
Read Gbaji's post below mine. It's a much better synopsis of what happened.

Edited, Jun 20th 2012 5:51pm by Bigdaddyjug


I liked yours better though. It had 95% of what was in gbaji's post, and a lot lot lot less words. Smiley: frown


From a CNN opinion piece:
Quote:
United States v. Nixon held that, with the possible exception of documents pertaining to military and state secrets, executive privilege is not absolute but "qualified."

Under a "qualified privilege," documents that are potentially exempt from mandatory disclosure might still have to be released to another branch of government. This would happen when the institutional needs of the demanding branch to acquire the information in support of its own constitutional functions are weightier than the harms that would follow should the executive branch be forced to disclose it.


TLDR = basically my understanding is since it isn't a military/state secret they still have to share these documents with the appropriate court if it demands them. They just feel they have no obligation to share them with congress at this point. If there's reason to suspect criminal wrongdoing, you press charges and should have access to the documents in question.

Edited, Jun 21st 2012 8:23am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#42 Jun 21 2012 at 9:53 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Issa's been fishing for a big score since he took the chair. After numerous testimonies and disclosures, the administration is done playing along. Any votes on it will be strictly party line and reinforce the partisan aspects of it. There actually is stuff about the program worth investigating and rebuking but it's under such a heavy slathering of partisan hunting at this point that it's never going to be productive. Issa doesn't want anything less than a big embarrassment for the president so he's uninterested in anything but pushing further and further no matter what it actually deserves.

In a few days to a week, the SCotUS will rule on the health care law and this will be all but forgotten.

This is also, unless I'm forgetting anything, the fourth major display of Executive power in the face of Congress. The others springing to mind being Libya, immigration (discretion & the recent order) and recess appointments during the pro-forma session. The GOP has folded each previous time and I'm sure Obama feels emboldened to exercise it now.

Edited, Jun 21st 2012 10:58am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#43 Jun 21 2012 at 10:28 AM Rating: Good
***
1,000 posts
My favorite part of this whole thing is how the far right wing is interpreting it. Let's see, this is how Obama is going to destroy the 2nd amendment. Something along the lines of "The gangs will kill lots of people with the guns, causing an outcry for more gun control!".

The better part is the NRA's line about Obama not doing anything at all about gun control in his 1st term to lull people into relaxing, and he's gonna take our guns in his 2nd term!

It's fun watching the crazies sometimes, but not for too long.
____________________________
Come on Bill, let's go home
[ffxisig]63311[/ffxisig]
#44 Jun 21 2012 at 3:11 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
Belkira wrote:
Debalic wrote:
Does it blow a hole in gbaji's lack of media argument if I heard this exact story on ABC's nighttime news as I was reading this thread?


And on All Things Considered on my way home in the car.


Yes. Now tell me how many times you saw this on TV or heard about it on any non-conservative talk radio show prior to the last couple weeks? That's the point. This has gotten very little media coverage until now. And now only because the media kinda can't not report on it at this point. Is it really so hard for you people to see the contrast between the kind of coverage this story has gotten compared to past allegations involving Republicans? The Plame story burst into a massive media frenzy based essentially on one reporter speculating that something another reporter wrote might have been classified and might have come from someone in the White House. Pure speculation, which ended out being completely false on both counts, yet that didn't prevent massive coverage broadcast into every livingroom in the country.


Here you have a case where we know that the operation was badly executed. We know that people died as a result. We know that our own government was behind it. We know that attempts were made to cover this up which were thwarted by a few whistle blowers in the ATF. Someone please explain to me then why it's taken well over a year for the media to provide any coverage and half of the coverage it's doing now is about how this is just the GOP engaging in election year politicking.


I keep becoming more and more ashamed of the media we have in this country. They used to at least attempt to pretend to cover the news fairly and leave their own biases at the door. But that time seems to be in the past now.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#45 Jun 21 2012 at 3:26 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
Read the OP article link. The first legitimate reason I can think of to suppress documents about the "Fast and Furious" operations is that it would endanger undercover law enforcement agents still involved with the drug cartel and gun traders. Redacting their names may or may not help that.


Um... No one's asking for the documents to be made public, but for them to be made available to the oversight committee. These committees deal with classified documents all the time and are under the same oaths that those handing them over are under. That is simply not an excuse. These committees exist to examine sensitive documents in the smallest group possible for exactly this reason. There is no legitimate excuse not to hand this stuff over.

Quote:
The second and more believable reason, at least if this was in Britain, is that the documents would reveal too much undercover police procedure.


Um... Except in this case, it was the procedures used which caused this whole thing to fail. Oversight committees have oversight on the executive programs they fund. That's the whole point of the system. Those programs and those running them are required to provide any information about their operations to the relevant committees upon request. Again, they exist to provide oversight. Saying "we don't want to tell you how we operate" is not a valid response.

Quote:
Even in trials by jury, undercover police are not to be asked WHERE they observed a witness from, because that blows police methods. They can only be asked WHAT they observed of the witnesses' behaviour. Even if the undervover police officer was in the same room as the witness, and fully visible to the witness.


This is not a trial. It's a congressional committee asking for information about a program that they have legal oversight over. Holder refusing to hand over the documents would be like an employee refusing to explain to his boss why he lost the Flugelheim contract. Saying "something went wrong, but I'm not going to tell you what" is not a valid response. This is not about releasing these documents to the public. It's about releasing them to a small group of members of Congress who's job is to examine these sorts of documents and make assessments of them so that we *don't* have to tell the whole public (or even the whole congress) the secret details of some government operation.


We trust members of congress with details about black ops we conduct. We then trust them as elected officials to represent *us* when determining whether said operations were handled properly or were necessary. We do it this way so that we can maintain national security interests while still ensuring that "the people" have a say in what goes on. That's the whole point of our system. This is why Holder's actions really do have no grounds at all. If he's not required to report to this oversight committee, then he's not bound by the law at all. That's a really big deal. And for some to shrug this off as partisan politics is not just ignorant, but it's dangerous as well. These sorts of hearings and oversight is the check that we citizens have against abuses of power by our own government. Weaken that and you weaken all of us. Not just Democrats or Republicans.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#46 Jun 21 2012 at 3:50 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
Jophiel wrote:
There actually is stuff about the program worth investigating and rebuking but it's under such a heavy slathering of partisan hunting at this point that it's never going to be productive.


What slathering? I think that's pretty subjective. Is it slathering anytime a Republican asks for information from a Democrat? The whole claim of partisanship loses its weight if you apply it every single time no matter what the situation. Boy who cried wolf and all that.

Quote:
Issa doesn't want anything less than a big embarrassment for the president so he's uninterested in anything but pushing further and further no matter what it actually deserves.


So you're saying that Holder (and now the White House) are blocking this because they don't want to be embarrassed? Really!?

Quote:
In a few days to a week, the SCotUS will rule on the health care law and this will be all but forgotten.


I'm sure the media will do everything they can to shuffle this story out of the public eye as quickly as possible and that will be a great excuse to do so. The issue wont go away though.

Quote:
This is also, unless I'm forgetting anything, the fourth major display of Executive power in the face of Congress. The others springing to mind being Libya, immigration (discretion & the recent order) and recess appointments during the pro-forma session. The GOP has folded each previous time and I'm sure Obama feels emboldened to exercise it now.


Good thing we're never allowed to argue a slippery slope though. Because letting someone get away with one abuse of power never leads to them attempting more of the same. Nosirree!

Oh. And you forgot the whole "Justice department refusing to defend DOMA even though it's out job to do so" one as well. Apparently oaths to uphold the law weren't really taken very seriously by members of the Obama Administration. One wonders why we bother to administer such things.

Edited, Jun 21st 2012 2:52pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#47 Jun 21 2012 at 3:58 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
What slathering? I think that's pretty subjective

You're welcome to do so. I've no delusions about convincing you otherwise.
Quote:
So you're saying that Holder (and now the White House) are blocking this because they don't want to be embarrassed? Really!?

That's not even close to what I said.
Quote:
I'm sure the media...

Yes, I'm sure you'll think about the media whatever you're told to think about the media. This thread already demonstrated that.
Quote:
Good thing we're never allowed to argue a slippery slope though.

Your butthurt is showing. Also your inability to argue things logically.
Quote:
Oh. And you forgot the whole "Justice department refusing to defend DOMA even though it's out job to do so" one as well.

Haha, yeah the GOP is taking a bath all over, aren't they? Of course, each thing did have a valid defense by the administration (which is why all the GOP could do was impotently caterwaul) but I know crying about oaths is more important to you so I'll let you have that one was well Smiley: smile
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#48 Jun 21 2012 at 4:49 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
gbaji wrote:
Belkira wrote:
Debalic wrote:
Does it blow a hole in gbaji's lack of media argument if I heard this exact story on ABC's nighttime news as I was reading this thread?


And on All Things Considered on my way home in the car.


Yes. Now tell me how many times you saw this on TV or heard about it on any non-conservative talk radio show prior to the last couple weeks?

This reminds me of what my son says when I tell him more than one time that he has to do something. "But you only said it once! It doesn't count yet!"

Smiley: oyvey
#49 Jun 21 2012 at 5:08 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Gbaji wrote:
why it's taken well over a year for the media to provide any coverage

Jophiel wrote:
"No media coverage!" has been diluted to "Well, sure there's tons of print coverage and CBS won an award for its broadcast coverage and ABC has been covering it (but we say not enough) and it's been on all the cable news networks but we're pretty sure this one show on NBC (we're not counting any other news coverage on NBC or its affiliates) didn't cover it because... LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS!!!!"

Smiley: nod
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#50 Jun 21 2012 at 5:20 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,915 posts
gbaji wrote:
the lack of media coverage

It's not even a joke. You don't get your news from anywhere. Do you know what my first thought was when reading this thread title? Old news.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvLU7ob7mwA

No, not the fact that it was on The Daily Show, but rather that that segment of the daily show contains a ncie selection of clips from major news organizations about the subject. TDS even had anotehr segment about the debacle days later.

You are utterly a tool. This was in my local paper, The Dallas Morning News, just today. People are even discussing it in the op-ed section of the Dallas Morning News in the section reserved for reader opinions, because apparently everyone seems to know and care about it.
#51 Jun 21 2012 at 5:53 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
Jophiel wrote:
"No media coverage!" has been diluted to ...


**** of a strawman there Joph.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 1 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (1)