PC Gaming News
Page 1 of 6 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 57
  1. #1

    Obama Nation: Faster & Furious-er!

    There's a couple of items that y'all are studiously avoiding discussion on, if you're even aware of them. Jon Stewart is unlikely to mention them, seeing as how they're both potentially impeachable offenses. I figure I hadn't made any Obama Nation threads in a while, so here's the first of the two.



    In a nutshell, "Fast and Furious" is a massive scandal involving the Attorney General (Eric Holder, since you might not know), your beloved Lightworker (President Obama), and $80 Million of those "stimulus" dollars the EBIL TEA Party is angry about. In 2009, the Obama administration was trying to generate support for more weapons bans, as well as propagate and support the (initially dishonest) claim that the Mexican narco-terrorist organizations receive their arms from U.S. gun dealers. We can get into the <previous> dishonesty of the claim if needed, but the claim is obviously legitimate <now> - Obama's administration has indeed been proved to have routinely provided arms and munitions to drug dealers.

    To support the dual policy initiative above, "Fast and Furious" was announced shortly after Obama took office. Weapons traffic attempts by narco-terrorist gangs were allowed to proceed until the recipient could be identified and arrested - seemingly typical law enforcement procedure, to catch them red-handed. However, the facts behind the program were obscured, and the weapons were apparently supposed to "walk" - be delivered and not seized. What actually occurred was that gun stores who would have reported suspicious weapons requests, like from probable narco-terrorists, were instead asked to sell the weapons against their better judgement. Furthermore, it has been reported that ATF or FBI agents actually sold and trafficked in the weapons in order to get them to the "right" (wrong) hands.

    The concept of "gun walking" may have actually been practiced previously, including by the Bush administration ("Operation Wide Receiver" per the AP). This already led to half-hearted attempts to claim that the whole problem was Bush's fault, since which someone Obama-friendly seems to have put their fist into the claimant's throat because they want this issue GONE. It has even been speculated that the recent announcement of the Iranian assassination plot was announced in order to take the heat off of the DoJ.

    Furthermore, I suspect it was probably recognized that the ATF under Bush conducted the program properly/under surveillance, i.e. they generally recaptured the weapons as soon as they were in the targets' hands. However, the AP claims that there were 9 people charged, with two pleading guilty to making false statements, so it is obvious that this program's concept was a flawed and dangerous one from the onset.

    Under Holder's jurisdiction, however, the weapons were <deliberately> not monitored, the FBI apparently waived background checks, and the whereabouts of the illegal transfers have not even been traced since. We literally don't know where the ~1500+ guns are, and under F&F or similar programs they were not 'trafficked' in order to make arrests. ATF, DEA, FBI, and Border Patrol agents all had misgivings about the programs, and now the bureaucrats are coming out (late) to denounce their politically appointed masters for the program and point fingers at each other.

    The weapons are now also showing up everywhere, most notably in border killings which have claimed the lives of at least 200, including around 150 Mexican law enforcement officials - but the American media studiously has ignored this scandal for months even though at least 11 crimes were linked to the U.S. - until the death of U.S. Border Patrol agent Brian Terry (at which time the gig was up and F&F halted).

    Holder has perjured himself already, claiming that he had no idea when he had been briefed multiple times and all his underlings were in it up to their necks. His attempted cover-up and white-wash of the issue, like appointing a friendly IG to perform an "investigation", are blowing up in his face. Now Rep Issa has subpoenaed him, and mentioned that the White House is intimidating witnesses. I'm expecting Holder to take the 5th, in no small part because he'd be the direct link to proving Obama's false denials of involvement - which to this point are only substantiated by this (hoping the link is to the right clip):

  2. #2
    GWOnline Content Team
    GWOnline Site Pal
    Achievements:
    Social10 PostsVeteranCreated Blog entry10K Posts
    Alaris's Avatar
    Server

    Kaineng
    Guild

    The Order of Dii [Dii]
    Posts

    29,751
    Ok, anyone with credibility wants to bother fact-checking this?

    I'll file it under "spin" like the last 20 J articles I fact-checked.
    == Alaris & clone ==
    Proud Officer of The Order Of Dii [Dii] - join us
    You can tell the quality of life of people by what they complain about

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Alaris View Post
    Ok, anyone with credibility wants to bother fact-checking this?

    I'll file it under "spin" like the last 20 J articles I fact-checked.
    That's a pretty shabby response, Alaris.
    mv

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Alaris View Post
    Ok, anyone with credibility wants to bother fact-checking this?

    I'll file it under "spin" like the last 20 J articles I fact-checked.
    No not really, because frankly ‘war on drugs’ which I’ll classify this issue under, has gone back far beyond Obama and Bush. If this particular investigation is being conducted the same as before, to the same standards as before is not really relevant until the case is closed and the results are accounted for, they can say this in an ongoing investigation and they are ‘still building their case.’ I’ll bet the same weapons that were allowed to be sold under Bush, and we can go back as far as Regan, are also being used to kill people in the drug wars going on now.

    This is not impeachable, that is frankly a stupid statement and is just propaganda to hype people up. I’ve heard of ‘impeachable’ dealings claims coming from the opposing political party from every president in office since I was old enough to pay attention, meaning Regan. Frankly they will have better luck trying to impeach Obama for killing a US citizen that most of people in the US would have run our car over three times if we saw the guy crossing the road in front of us. Hell if that guy had stuck his head out in Texas they would have lynched him, shot him in the street and left him there.

    Is Obama going to be held liable for a poorly conducted investigation when he may have only appointed the guy. No way in hell will that happen, the worst that will happen is Obama will call for his resignation for screwing things up. Was Bush impeached for the poor handling of Katrina? Sticking anything to Obama for this is less likely than getting someone to admit that Bush invaded Iraq as a personal vendetta for Sadam sending assassins after papa Bush. I wish them luck spending money on the investigation, I hope they spend more time finding those guns and putting them to the heads of the drug gangs that have been using them.

    I would not doubt they screwed up royally and now have a bunch of US made guns in the hands of Mexican drug gangs, but I’d say they will have an easier time finding OJ guilty than they will sticking this to someone as low as Holder, this won’t even scuff Obama’s shoes.

    I hope the other issue is the killing of a US citizen, that will be a more interesting discussion.

  5. #5
    Stewart covered this a while ago, actually. His take was that it was an unbelievably stupid plan that has now backfired horribly. I'd agree with that assessment. He also presented the facts a bit differently than how J has presented them: namely, the original idea was indeed to put tracking devices (GPS) in the guns and then sell them...but the devices ran out of battery power within a day and so they lost them all. So...yeah. Really goddamn stupid. I'll try to find the video...

    [edit]Got it. It ran back in June.
    http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tu...--mexico-grift

    No I'm not embedding it.

    [edit2]Of course, Jon only mentions it going up as far as the acting director of the ATF, Ken Melson. Where he got his orders from isn't talked about much, other than the DoJ wasn't exactly cooperating. In June. I imagine J's info is more recent.
    Last edited by Skyy High; 12-10-2011 at 23:52.

  6. #6
    Thanks for posting that Skyy, it's headshakingly horrible news but at least there's a bit less bias with that info.

    As for Alaris's response, it might be a little over exaggerated, but it is hard to take someone seriously when they say always say EBIL right before talking about an organization they like/love/idk, not to mention saying that I love Obama (hint: I don't) and calling him a Lightworker (is that like a lightsaber, cause lightsabers are cool so it must be a complement right? Oh wait, it's J so obviously it's meant to sound like one but isn't really... so it probably means we all think the lights would all shut off if he wasn't running the show, again, incorrect). And then immediately follow it with a statement like this:
    Obama's administration has indeed been proved to have routinely provided arms and munitions to drug dealers.
    I don't know if that's just poor grammar, or he was trying to get people to believe by reiterating the point. The question I have though is; who done did proved it (and what is routinely)?

    This is not to say that the info J pointed out was wrong, or that he was wrong in pointing it out, just that it's reasonable to ask for fact-checking when the person giving out info is showing so much bias. Bias is what makes people start to discredit info from a person, and then finding out the person is wrong as well as biased leads to a lack of credibility... and people's definition of wrong are different so bias can make some people discredit a source before others.

    Basically, what I'm saying is this: J, if you want to be taken seriously, drop the bias and actually converse like a normal human being. Oh yeah, and stop labeling everyone else as an enemy before you even hear what they have to say.

    Getting back to it though, this was one really bad plan, did they test it like... at all? Sounds like they slapped the trackers in the guns, turned on the tracking equipment and gave the thumbs up to ship them out when they saw blips on the screen. By the way, this is what I was referring to back in the thread on thinking outside the box, just because a new idea sounds good doesn't mean it is, you need to think of every possible flaw and actually test to make sure that it isn't an issue.

    Not only battery life, but what would happen if the Mexicans buying these guns you know... checked them or disassembled them for one reason or another? How sturdy are the trackers... it's not like gun shipments to Mexico are being moved along a nice smooth road the whole way. Something tells me that if they were as cheap as was said on Stewart's video they could have broken as easily as an egg.

    Bah, so now what? Should we send some nukes down there with slightly more expensive trackers in the hopes that those won't get checked for bugs? Of course, we'd have to give them a week or maybe a month to get to the buyer just to make sure we get the right person.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by djacob View Post
    Basically, what I'm saying is this: J, if you want to be taken seriously, drop the bias and actually converse like a normal human being. Oh yeah, and stop labeling everyone else as an enemy before you even hear what they have to say.
    Yeah this pretty much. Surely we can all just discuss facts, without constantly labeling people Lefties, Commies, Zombies, and throwing buzz words around The One, Obamessiah. Why not simply, discuss the issue? Yes, I realise a lot of us are left leaning, is that a reason to immediately be a jerk to anyone that is willing to partake in an open discussion with you?

    Give it a try, humour us, you might end up liking it. I'm not saying, dodge the issue, but be less of a jerk about it. Try to be a bit unbiased about it, hard as that may seem.

  8. #8
    Achievements:
    10 PostsVeteran1,000 Posts5000 Experience Points6 months registered
    bearsfwd's Avatar
    Server

    Kaineng
    Guild

    The Order of Dii [Dii]
    Posts

    3,413
    Seriously? We go months without a single one of these stupid threads, and I just begin to think they are gone for good...then look what shows up in my "New Posts".

    Can we get a filter of some sort on the "New Posts" thing, pretty please?! Or just maybe something in the user control panel to ignore all threads that contain certain things in the title?

    Political talk is one thing, but totally biased political talk is a whole different ballgame.

    *goes off to corner grumbling about how dumb politics are*

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Rob Van Der Sloot View Post
    Yeah this pretty much. Surely we can all just discuss facts, without constantly labeling people Lefties, Commies, Zombies, and throwing buzz words around The One, Obamessiah. Why not simply, discuss the issue? Yes, I realise a lot of us are left leaning, is that a reason to immediately be a jerk to anyone that is willing to partake in an open discussion with you?

    Give it a try, humour us, you might end up liking it. I'm not saying, dodge the issue, but be less of a jerk about it. Try to be a bit unbiased about it, hard as that may seem.
    He's a troll... he's not here to have a discussion on an adult level. He's here to troll. It's what trolls do.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by MixedVariety View Post
    That's a pretty shabby response, Alaris.
    Shabby is as shabby does, I suppose.
    Quote Originally Posted by GrimShade View Post
    No not really, because frankly ‘war on drugs’ which I’ll classify this issue under, has gone back far beyond Obama and Bush.
    This really isn't <about> drugs any longer, but criminal terror gangs that threaten the stability of Mexico. The "narco-" prefix just indicates their main revenue stream, to differentiate them from "Islamic" or other types.
    Quote Originally Posted by GrimShade View Post
    I’ll bet the same weapons that were allowed to be sold under Bush, and we can go back as far as Regan, are also being used to kill people in the drug wars going on now.
    Okay, so let's consider that claim. Can you substantiate it? Or is it just a "well, so's you!" assertion in the face of appalling misconduct?
    Quote Originally Posted by GrimShade View Post
    This is not impeachable, that is frankly a stupid statement and is just propaganda to hype people up. I’ve heard of ‘impeachable’ dealings claims coming from the opposing political party from every president in office since I was old enough to pay attention, meaning Regan.
    Sorry, but it <does> fall under that category, and back when the shoe was on the other foot you would have shouted it from the rooftops. I'd not expect Obama to fall prey to it, mind you, but it's certainly enough for him to have to throw Holder under the bus with all the rest.
    Quote Originally Posted by GrimShade View Post
    Hell if that guy had stuck his head out in Texas they would have lynched him, shot him in the street and left him there.
    Have you ever lived in Texas? Or is this just generic slander?
    Quote Originally Posted by GrimShade View Post
    Is Obama going to be held liable for a poorly conducted investigation when he may have only appointed the guy. No way in hell will that happen, the worst that will happen is Obama will call for his resignation for screwing things up.
    The difference is if Holder fingers Obama to save his own skin. This project is not a 'poorly conducted investigation'; it's trafficking arms to terrorists in a neighboring country - and the Mexicans are reported as being incensed over it.
    Quote Originally Posted by GrimShade View Post
    Was Bush impeached for the poor handling of Katrina?
    No, and neither were Ray "Chocolate City" Nagin or Kathleen "Queen Bee" Blanco, who were far more guilty of incompetence. Obama wasn't impeached over the BP spill, either. Being at the helm during multi-layer bureaucratic stuff-ups doesn't rise to the level of deliberately arming hostile terrorists.
    Quote Originally Posted by djacob View Post
    Thanks for posting that Skyy, it's headshakingly horrible news but at least there's a bit less bias with that info.
    So you proceed to spend the bulk of your response whining about me, and not bothering to discuss the subject. Nice.
    Quote Originally Posted by djacob View Post
    Basically, what I'm saying is this: J, if you want to be taken seriously, drop the bias and actually converse like a normal human being. Oh yeah, and stop labeling everyone else as an enemy before you even hear what they have to say.
    Considering the audience, why should I bother?
    Quote Originally Posted by djacob View Post
    Getting back to it though, this was one really bad plan, did they test it like... at all? Sounds like they slapped the trackers in the guns, turned on the tracking equipment and gave the thumbs up to ship them out when they saw blips on the screen.
    Do you have any substantiation of the tracking claim? These arms did not have such high-tech bug devices, from accounts other than Stewart's. You <do> remember that he's not just a comedian, but a shill for all Left-wing causes, don't you?

    There are only two cases known at this point where the weapons were actually "bugged". Operation Wide Receiver did indeed use RFID tags, and the shortcomings were noted at that time.
    Quote Originally Posted by djacob View Post
    Bah, so now what?
    Now we watch the body count. I'm not referring to the ongoing ATF cover-up.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Praetorian View Post
    He's a troll... he's not here to have a discussion on an adult level. He's here to troll. It's what trolls do.
    So obviously, it doesn't merit proving any of what I've cited wrong; far better to just make an ad hominem attack and walk away.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •