World of KJ
http://www.worldofkj.com/forum/

Fast and Furious
http://www.worldofkj.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=67092		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  Shack [ Thu Jun 21, 2012 7:09 pm ]
Post subject:  Fast and Furious
This could be the biggest story in the world very soon. Apparently there are piles and piles of evidence and documents, multiple whistleblowers who were directly involved. This isn't some random blogger making up stuff. It's legit evidence, people high up, highly credited reporters. There is a hugely respected source (Katie Pavlich) who spent a year getting as much evidence and information as she could just to make sure this was real, and just released the evidence in a book. It involves high up managerial sources to go along with the low end officers. It sounds like it's all there.

The media is trying to sell you this soft porn version: That the Obama administration tried to GPS guns to track bigger Mexican warlords, they did a poor job tracking, and it led to some unfortunate murders (300 dead tracked so far - that only includes the ones they had the gun for to know about it, so the real number including guns they don't have is likely much higher)

What's about to come out: This was no GPS tracking scheme. They only put 2 GPS trackers in 2500 guns for examples. What really happened was the government set up the guns to get out of control, and after the consequences, they would use it as evidence to enforce new gun regulations. They set up the entire thing, knew what they were doing, and then had a huge cover-up.

Let that sink in for a second. The government armed Mexican warlords enough to lead to hundreds of death, for their own political goals. This is sinister, brutal, unthinkable. If true, Obama should be Watergate'd. This is worse than Watergate, the murder of hundreds and covering it up > spying on the democrats and covering it up. This thing could be a political earthquake very very soon.
Author:  Rev [ Thu Jun 21, 2012 7:58 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Fast and Furious
Uh oh this could put a mormon in the White House if it's as bad as Shack's saying
Author:  Argos [ Fri Jun 22, 2012 6:11 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Fast and Furious
When birtherism fails, new crazy stories are required. This one sounds very crazy and unlikely. Maybe Katie Pavlich, who recommends books by Sarah Palin, will be able to persuade me to believe it.
Author:  David [ Fri Jun 22, 2012 6:46 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Fast and Furious
Shack wrote:
There is a hugely respected source (Katie Pavlich)

Not sure if I should keep reading or go have a cup of coffee and laugh heartily.

(All right, in truth, I read your whole post. You nicely created a combustible, foreboding atmosphere, but it's smoke and mirrors. Your prediction this turns into an earth-shattering Watergate level scandal soon and not just a niche, Alex Jones worthy "controversy" will be proven wrong very soon.)
Author:  Mannyisthebest [ Fri Jun 22, 2012 7:21 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Fast and Furious
Well to be fair I am quite certain if Bush was in Office you guys would be up in arms.


A story does not become impossible simply if the people in power are the ones you like.


Anyways I think Obama deserves great criticism over health care alone and frankly I think he is a lame President and Clinton is right, he is a amateur.

However I do not like Romney but if anyone thinks Obama is a great President or is a great man or is a man that is different from other politicians... get your head out of your own ass seriously...

A Man is simply a false prophet... :roll:
Author:  David [ Fri Jun 22, 2012 7:40 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Fast and Furious
Men are false prophets? Mannyisajesusfreak, perhaps?

And your point is false. I didn't believe every accusation and insinuation leveled against George W. With every administration, there is a need to separate real truth from bloated political gamesmanship.
Author:  Tyler [ Fri Jun 22, 2012 9:00 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Fast and Furious
Uh, Manny, Bush was doing arms sting operations too.

Also, the US government arming and aiding violence in Latin America...wow, that's such a shocker. I'm sure this is totally different from the last 200 years of policy.
Author:  Tyler [ Fri Jun 22, 2012 9:02 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Fast and Furious
Katie Pavlich...really, a reliable source?
Author:  Tyler [ Fri Jun 22, 2012 9:03 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Fast and Furious
I'm just saying, as far as moral outrages go when it comes to US policies in Latin America, this is small-fry shit. Certainly sub-Contra. The people making waves about this don't give two shits about brown Spanish-speakers all of a sudden. If they did they'd advocate sane drug policy and poverty alleviation on both sides of the border.
Author:  Caius [ Fri Jun 22, 2012 9:46 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Fast and Furious
Tyler wrote:
I'm just saying, as far as moral outrages go when it comes to US policies in Latin America, this is small-fry shit. Certainly sub-Contra. The people making waves about this don't give two shits about brown Spanish-speakers all of a sudden. If they did they'd advocate sane drug policy and poverty alleviation on both sides of the border.

I agree that they do not care so much about what is happening in Mexico, but what about Brian Terry, the ATF(E) Agent who was murdered by someone using one of these "gun walk[ed]" guns? Further, citing Executive Privilege does not do anything to make this go away, though I doubt Obama was aware of this program.

You are right though about the Bush administration. They did run Operation Wide Receiver, a similar but smaller program, towards the end of that administration.
Author:  Chippy [ Fri Jun 22, 2012 11:16 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Fast and Furious
This makes me chuckle.
Author:  Mannyisthebest [ Fri Jun 22, 2012 12:31 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Fast and Furious
Lol my comment about a false prophet was a bit wacky but I meant something by it...

Going to back to 2008, millions of us and especially on this board were hyping up Obama to such a level that he was seen as a Prophet. Remember the infamous "Obama is gonna pay for our Gas!"

I am just saying that Obama behaviour and tone clearly indicate he is just a normal politican and that anyone who thinks Obama is special needs to realize he is not.

Also I am not saying Bush did not do similar things, but frankly considering what many of us were saying about Obama in 2008, its quite sad that in 2012 we are excusing his behaviour because Bush did the same. :(

Just think about that...

I think you can realize why I have been quite critical of him. IMO it does not matter if he is a dem or a rep..
Author:  Tyler [ Fri Jun 22, 2012 4:58 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Fast and Furious
Caius wrote:
what about Brian Terry, the ATF(E) Agent who was murdered by someone using one of these "gun walk[ed]" guns?


Another guy off the government dole! No, I may be a little cynical there, but it's not quite as cynical as them not seeing any correlation between institutionalized Mexican poverty and drug violence and the illegal immigration most of them are pissed off about. Mexican problems aren't isolated to Mexico, after all, and a government agent dying isn't more important than the thousands needlessly killed by the hamfistedness of Felipe Calderon and the brutality of gang warfare.

Quote:
Further, citing Executive Privilege does not do anything to make this go away, though I doubt Obama was aware of this program.


Probably. Not sure what else can be done. Administrations work like cops or gangs or corporations or any other organization with serious power over something, if someone fucks up, you divert the blame to small fish and do whatever you can to protect the guys on top. And Holder's not small fish at all.

Quote:
You are right though about the Bush administration. They did run Operation Wide Receiver, a similar but smaller program, towards the end of that administration.


Yep. A lot of people complain that people continue to blame Bush, or cite power abuses back from the Bush or earlier eras as backtracking. That's absurd, and not how things work. We have SCOTUS judges with liver spots older than Bush v. Gore or the precedents set by the Bush administration. Most administrations, and I would include the Obama administration and probably every other administration since Ford other than the second Bush administration, are simply products of the political establishment and national mood at the time. 9/11 and the ideologies that guided the intellectual capital behind the Bush administration allowed them to create several political, military and executive precedents. It's why torture, extrajudicial killings, drones, shady CIA and military stuff continues under Obama: it's no less vile, but it wouldn't have been possible without the administration before it setting the precedent for it. The Obama administration is a fairly unexceptional administration in makeup, ideology and opportunity, considering the nation at the time. Even if he wanted to expand executive and apparatus powers, I don't think he has the political capital to do it, and he probably never did.
Author:  Tyler [ Fri Jun 22, 2012 5:06 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Fast and Furious
Mannyisthebest wrote:
Lol my comment about a false prophet was a bit wacky but I meant something by it...

Going to back to 2008, millions of us and especially on this board were hyping up Obama to such a level that he was seen as a Prophet. Remember the infamous "Obama is gonna pay for our Gas!"

I am just saying that Obama behaviour and tone clearly indicate he is just a normal politican and that anyone who thinks Obama is special needs to realize he is not.

Also I am not saying Bush did not do similar things, but frankly considering what many of us were saying about Obama in 2008, its quite sad that in 2012 we are excusing his behaviour because Bush did the same. :(

Just think about that...

I think you can realize why I have been quite critical of him. IMO it does not matter if he is a dem or a rep..


Anyone that thought Obama would be special didn't do their research.

Also, nobody's excusing it. I've criticized the Obama administration quite a bit. We're simply citing that special cases of presidential power, demonstrated by the Bush administration, and in the past by guys like Nixon, LBJ, FDR, Wilson, TR, Lincoln, set precedents (I'm not sure about the Reagan administration, I get the impression that was more of a socioeconomic shift than political-executive, but I should read more on it). These can be good or bad, but they *will* effect everyone after them, and if you don't have the brilliance or the political capital to exploit it, and if the guy before you didn't get caught with his hands in the cookie jar like Nixon, there's not much you can do to curtail it. When you delegate power like that, those delegates will have power over the guy after you and will operate with general impunity. There's a reason J. Edgar Hoover had nobody with the balls or willpower to replace him. I may thoroughly criticize Obama, Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, Ford, Carter, etc., but there's mostly not a lot they could have done otherwise even if they could. They're not irrelevant, but they're kind of beside the point. They weren't/aren't really the guys on the above. Politics is less about the people involved and more about what you can get out of them.
Author:  Groucho [ Fri Jun 22, 2012 8:25 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Fast and Furious
Tyler wrote:
Uh, Manny, Bush was doing arms sting operations too.

Also, the US government arming and aiding violence in Latin America...wow, that's such a shocker. I'm sure this is totally different from the last 200 years of policy.


That's the bottom line -- this started off as a Bush policy. Critics seem to forget that. It's a bad policy that the Obama administration should have ended. So they're both at fault.
Author:  Mannyisthebest [ Fri Jun 22, 2012 8:34 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Fast and Furious
Thats my point, I expect people in power to do such things.

Its just that Obama came in mostly lying to us all about being different.

Just saying he is nothing special and quite mediocre.
Author:  Caius [ Fri Jun 22, 2012 10:06 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Fast and Furious
Mannyisthebest wrote:
Thats my point, I expect people in power to do such things.

Its just that Obama came in mostly lying to us all about being different.

Just saying he is nothing special and quite mediocre.

They have all sucked since Pericles.
Author:  Mannyisthebest [ Sat Jun 23, 2012 12:22 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Fast and Furious
I think the US faces serious economical/social issues but I think it will never solve these problems for its also facing a serious political problem as well.

It has had terrible or weak leadership for over a decade now.
Author:  MovieDude [ Sat Jun 23, 2012 3:06 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Fast and Furious
Groucho wrote:
Tyler wrote:
Uh, Manny, Bush was doing arms sting operations too.

Also, the US government arming and aiding violence in Latin America...wow, that's such a shocker. I'm sure this is totally different from the last 200 years of policy.


That's the bottom line -- this started off as a Bush policy. Critics seem to forget that. It's a bad policy that the Obama administration should have ended. So they're both at fault.


Wait, Tyler pointed out how the US government has been continuously caused violence in Latin America for centuries, and you're saying it started off as a Bush policy? Having grown up in Bush's shadow I can certainly attest to blaming him for policies he created... But this? What are you defining as "this"?
Author:  Caius [ Sat Jun 23, 2012 10:50 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Fast and Furious
MovieDude wrote:
Groucho wrote:
Tyler wrote:
Uh, Manny, Bush was doing arms sting operations too.

Also, the US government arming and aiding violence in Latin America...wow, that's such a shocker. I'm sure this is totally different from the last 200 years of policy.


That's the bottom line -- this started off as a Bush policy. Critics seem to forget that. It's a bad policy that the Obama administration should have ended. So they're both at fault.


Wait, Tyler pointed out how the US government has been continuously caused violence in Latin America for centuries, and you're saying it started off as a Bush policy? Having grown up in Bush's shadow I can certainly attest to blaming him for policies he created... But this? What are you defining as "this"?

Look, no one doubts Groucho's Bush hating bona fides, but I am pretty sure he only meant gun walking in Operation Wide Receiver.
Author:  Groucho [ Sat Jun 23, 2012 3:56 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Fast and Furious
Caius wrote:
Look, no one doubts Groucho's Bush hating bona fides, but I am pretty sure he only meant gun walking in Operation Wide Receiver.


Exactly
Author:  Groucho [ Thu Jun 28, 2012 5:32 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Fast and Furious
Magnus wrote:
He's in contempt.


Just like they held Karl Rove in contempt. It's meaningless politics.
Author:  Bradley Witherberry [ Thu Jun 28, 2012 11:38 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Fast and Furious
Squirrel.

Image
Author:  Mannyisthebest [ Fri Jun 29, 2012 11:28 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Fast and Furious
"Just like they held Karl Rove in contempt. It's meaningless politics."

Lol in Canada in 2011, the opposition held the Conservatives in contempt of parliament triggering an elecion and the Conservatives went on to win a majority govt.

You are right its pointless politics
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/