Working backwards, we have the long standing racism exhibited by certain elements on the right, who fervently wish to get Obama out of office. Wishing Obama to fail, wishing him a 'Waterloo', calling him and his wife all type of vile and insulting names -- the racism angle is self-evident since such vitriol had never before been hurled at a president in modern times, even before he has a chance to implement many or any policy goals. Of course, despite your strawman I did not claim that this particular witch hunt was fueled by racism, but that it could be a component.
The partisan element is also self-evident. Many name-brand Republicans are on record as wishing Obama -- and Democrats -- failure. While this too may be fueled by racism, the fact that they so fervently wish failure upon him -- and the country, in order to make him fail -- is again, self evident (witness the hysterical acts of Congress since the Tea Party took the reins from the GOP).
Now we have the conspiracy component, which has already been established by a few posters in this thread -- that the gun walking deal was intended, somehow, to create support for domestic gun control/regulation/prohibition. You can read those posts as easily as I, so I presume you will not deny their existence. The second conspiracy component is Rep. Issa's attempt to construct some type of scenario where Holder personally approved the ATF program and is now trying to cover that up, which is ludicrous on its face since -- despite the protestation of one poster -- the program, under various names, has been operational since 2005/2006, long before the great Satan -- Obama -- arrived on the White House scene.
Summary: a group of racist, partisan right wing nutters doing their best to bring down a black Democratic president over a program which was initiated by white Republicans.
Last edited by Karl; 02-04-12 at 12:59 PM.
The differences between Wide Reciever and Fast and Furious are as follows: Wide Reciever was done with full cooperation and support of the Mexican government and its scope was very limited and interdiction of the arms was capable in all aspects of the operation. Meaning they could go after the guns at every step due to Mexican government cooperation and support. Fast & Furious did neither of these and the distribution was both larger and less controlled. Tracking of the guns was lost after 1 or 2 steps of the process. While Holder did not try to equate the two because to do so is rediculous, you did--Holder does not share your viewpoint. Meaning ---they are not equateable. BDS, pure and simple.
Second, thanks for the out of context quote linked into a strawman: Its being investigated in a congressionary oversight committee that is fully empowered to do exactly what its doing. The court of public opinon both has nothing to do with it and I never suggested such.
Which is still guilty because they, in fact, did allow people that would never have obtained the guns easier means to do so and in greater numbers than they would have accomplished. Which is the crux of the problem.No. Using my logic, you could argue that the gov't is innocent in giving drugs to a 'professional, full time' drug dealer (in a sting operation), because he would have obtained the drugs elsewhere.
Its not quite that simple. The two guns recovered at the scene have not been proven to have killed Terry, they also have not been ruled out and a third gun remains a mystery. So the people that DID kill him were armed with those weapons, which likely contributed to his death.Unfortunately his parents have been co-opted by political vultures that hope to profit from his death. According to my research they can't even ID the bullet that killed him, so they don't know if it came from a 'walked' gun or not.
Blog: Issa to FBI's Mueller: 'Agent Terry's Family and the American Public Deserve to Know'
Fast and Furious: FBI report at odds with ATF claim on weapons - Los Angeles Times
Finally the interviews of the Terry family and their feelings towards Holder :
Family Of Murdered Border Agent Breaks Silence, Lashes Out At Holder | Fox News
Whether you feel they have been co-opted or not, they are justifiably angry with how DOJ and ATF are making every attempt to hide and stonewall the congressional investigation into the matter.
Lastly, the racial thing? If the guy in the DOJ were white and the President in the matter were white, I think things would be moving faster in this ivestigation, not slower.
AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.
Negligence shows the least level of culpability, intention being the most serious and recklessness of intermediate seriousness, overlapping with gross negligence. The distinction between recklessness and criminal negligence lies in the presence or absence of foresight as to the prohibited consequences. Recklessness is usually described as a 'malfeasance' where the defendant knowingly exposes another to the risk of injury. The fault lies in being willing to run the risk. But criminal negligence is a 'misfeasance or 'nonfeasance' (see omission), where the fault lies in the failure to foresee and so allow otherwise avoidable dangers to manifest. In some cases this failure can rise to the level of willful blindness where the individual intentionally avoids adverting to the reality of a situation.
Criminal negligence becomes "gross" when the failure to foresee involves a "wanton disregard for human life"
Criminal negligence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaLaw Enforcement officials have a duty to protect life. Purposefully allowing assault rifles to pass into the hands of known murderous cartels not only violated their duty to protect life, but will likely be found to cross the line into "wanton disregard for human life" territory.Criminally negligent manslaughter
Criminally negligent manslaughter is variously referred to as criminally negligent homicide in the United States, gross negligence manslaughter in England and Wales. In Scotland and some Commonwealth of Nations jurisdictions the offense of culpable homicide might apply.
It occurs where death results from serious negligence, or, in some jurisdictions, serious recklessness. A high degree of negligence is required to warrant criminal liability. A related concept is that of willful blindness, which is where a defendant intentionally puts himself in a position where he will be unaware of facts which would render him liable.
Criminally negligent manslaughter occurs where there is an omission to act when there is a duty to do so, or a failure to perform a duty owed, which leads to a death. The existence of the duty is essential because the law does not impose criminal liability for a failure to act unless a specific duty is owed to the victim.
Manslaughter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams
I don't care what the differences are... both programs walked guns into Mexico, which is what the right is braying about. Even if all the Fast and Furious guns had been tracked, and had permission of the Mexican gov't, the right would still be trying to string Holder up because -- guns were walked into Mexico (and their 2nd Amendment conspiracy theory would still be in use). Therefore your distinction is simply a red herring.
Last edited by Karl; 02-04-12 at 03:51 PM.
2. May I suggest remedial logic instruction? I count at least three errors in same in that one sentence.
Last edited by Karl; 02-04-12 at 04:00 PM.