• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Eric Holder grilled over Fast and Furious in Congress

No, the weapon is completely legal, as no title, receipt or registration is required for the legality of the weapon, only the PURCHASER broke the law, as they signed paperwork assuring that it was NOT a 'straw purchase'.
True, but once the weapon is involved in a felony it is not legitimate for transfer. If the paperwork is done incorrectly for a bulk purchase all guns involved become illegitimate. I don't agree with that law, but it is the law.
The Mexican gun laws are none of our concern, just as the Ohio gun laws are of no great concern to Texans. Making things illegal, rather than the actions performed with those things is the liberals favorite ploy, separating personal responsibility (and individual rights) from gov't responsibility (and collective rights). My having a gun is of no more concern to you than my having a car, so long as I neither shoot you nor run you over. ;-)
Totally agree with this. But as things stand federal gun laws are complete BS but until they are reigned in we have to deal with it.
 
Just out of curiosity, did you support the Iraq war?



I should have known, when all else fails in a debate, expect someone to change the subject by dragging a red herring across the trail.


What does my supporting or not supporting any war have to do with "Eric Holder grilled over Fast and Furious in Congress"?


The better question is - Do you support what the Obama Administration and AG Holder are doing in the Fast and Furious mess? Do you think the AG is coming clean or lying through his teeth? Do you think he should be held in contempt of Congress because he won't supply the requested documents?
 
We know the game. To some the ends justify the means, even if a son, father, etc. will never see another day with their loved ones, but hey, the ideology advances so those who adhere to it don't care.



We also know that if this had happened under a Repub Admin, the hue and cry would be heard loud and clear and all over.
 
I should have known, when all else fails in a debate, expect someone to change the subject by dragging a red herring across the trail.


What does my supporting or not supporting any war have to do with "Eric Holder grilled over Fast and Furious in Congress"?


The better question is - Do you support what the Obama Administration and AG Holder are doing in the Fast and Furious mess? Do you think the AG is coming clean or lying through his teeth? Do you think he should be held in contempt of Congress because he won't supply the requested documents?

I'm just curious if the people who are crying crocodile tears over these two officers who were killed we're also outraged by the 4000+ American troops who were killed, and the tens of thousands who were wounded, as a result of the Bush administration's ****ed up policy. Just by way of rooting out the real hypocrites, dontcha know.
 
I'm just curious if the people who are crying crocodile tears over these two officers who were killed we're also outraged by the 4000+ American troops who were killed, and the tens of thousands who were wounded, as a result of the Bush administration's ****ed up policy. Just by way of rooting out the real hypocrites, dontcha know.


Sure that's your objective.
 
I'm just curious if the people who are crying crocodile tears over these two officers who were killed we're also outraged by the 4000+ American troops who were killed, and the tens of thousands who were wounded, as a result of the Bush administration's ****ed up policy. Just by way of rooting out the real hypocrites, dontcha know.

So you're comparing a Congressional approved military action to the DoJ loosing track of thousands of guns over the Mexico border.

:lamo

You still have a chance to throw in Hitler somewhere and go for the full monte.
 
So you're comparing a Congressional approved military action to the DoJ loosing track of thousands of guns over the Mexico border.

:lamo

You still have a chance to throw in Hitler somewhere and go for the full monte.


:thumbs: . . . . . That's funny.
 
So you're comparing a Congressional approved military action to the DoJ loosing track of thousands of guns over the Mexico border.

:lamo

You still have a chance to throw in Hitler somewhere and go for the full monte.

Admittedly it's a bit absurd to compare the epic screwup of pushing the country into war based on false and faked up intelligence to a small law enforcement action, but it should be quite revealing. Surely all of you Holder haters were calling for GWB's impeachment ... right?
 
Admittedly it's a bit absurd to compare the epic screwup of pushing the country into war based on false and faked up intelligence to a small law enforcement action, but it should be quite revealing. Surely all of you Holder haters were calling for GWB's impeachment ... right?


I know, since you certainly would make up a comment like - "pushing the country into war based on false and faked up intelligence " - you have hard evidence to support this claim, yes?
 
I'm just curious if the people who are crying crocodile tears over these two officers who were killed we're also outraged by the 4000+ American troops who were killed, and the tens of thousands who were wounded, as a result of the Bush administration's ****ed up policy. Just by way of rooting out the real hypocrites, dontcha know.

Off topic. When we go to a Congressional approved military action Mexico, ask that question again.
 
Last edited:
Your kidding with this comment aren't you?

These guns were provided by our government. These guns killed American citizens. I don't know how much clearer this can be stated.

And you don't seem to care. Sad that we've come to this point about other American citizens lives.
more attempts from the right to deflect from the reality that this is a non-issue
had the person who shot the agent not had a walked gun he would have had another
agent is still dead
nothing has changed because of the presence of the walked weapons

keep trying to spin it into something as it is great amusement to watch
 
Off topic. When we go to a Congressional approved military action Mexico, ask that question again.


Depends on what you call Mexico? According to some liberals, that would include Arizona, New Mexico, Most of Texas, and a large part of Nevada, and California.


j-mac
 
more attempts from the right to deflect from the reality that this is a non-issue
had the person who shot the agent not had a walked gun he would have had another
agent is still dead
nothing has changed because of the presence of the walked weapons

keep trying to spin it into something as it is great amusement to watch

The problem is he did have a weapon allowed across the border by the Obama administration. It's a matter of culpability. If I provided that same gun and they traced it back to me I'd be prosecuted. Why should Obama administration officials be exempt?
 
more attempts from the right to deflect from the reality that this is a non-issue
had the person who shot the agent not had a walked gun he would have had another
agent is still dead
nothing has changed because of the presence of the walked weapons

keep trying to spin it into something as it is great amusement to watch


Talk about spin. :lamo

At some point in time, if I were you that is, I'd pull my head out of the sand. Keep it buried to long and you smother.

Keep on :2dancing:. It becomes you.
 
Talk about spin. :lamo

At some point in time, if I were you that is, I'd pull my head out of the sand. Keep it buried to long and you smother.

Keep on :2dancing:. It becomes you.

You can always tell a moron, but you sure can't tell 'em much. ;-)
 
I know, since you certainly would make up a comment like - "pushing the country into war based on false and faked up intelligence " - you have hard evidence to support this claim, yes?

Absolutely. How about you? Got that smoking gun showing that Holder approved this mission? :popcorn2:
 
more attempts from the right to deflect from the reality that this is a non-issue
had the person who shot the agent not had a walked gun he would have had another
agent is still dead
nothing has changed because of the presence of the walked weapons

keep trying to spin it into something as it is great amusement to watch
The death of an American LEO due to a negligent federal action is a "non-issue" to you?
 
The death of an American LEO due to a negligent federal action is a "non-issue" to you?

no one died because of negligent federal action (or inaction)
no rational person would believe the person who killed the agent would not have otherwise been armed

so, you guys have moved from holder lied
to its Obama's fault (even tho the shrub started the motion)
to we did not monitor the assault weapons in mexico
to an agent died because this weapon was available (and presumably, there were no other weapons available)

again, don't stop
this weak pin the tail on the donkey attempt is quite amusing
 
Absolutely. How about you? Got that smoking gun showing that Holder approved this mission? :popcorn2:


This thread isn't about Iraq, or Bush, or Cheney, or anything other than the stonewalling Holder is doing with Congress' legal request for any, and ALL documents pertaining to F/F. So why don't you try and stick to the topic, unless you'd like to for once in here and admit that you are done, and your argument is weak stick liberal crap.


j-mac
 
Absolutely. How about you? Got that smoking gun showing that Holder approved this mission? :popcorn2:


Now now, how can I have any evidence on what AG Holder approved/disapproved in the gun running case? Since out of 70+K memos/emails AG Holder has in his possision he has only provided about 7+K to Congress. I think that Congress is about to hold him in contempt for not supplying said evidence, yes? Thus that means I wouldn't have it, yes? Remember the thread is about "grilling" Holder over Fast and Furious.


But you can provide your proof. Thanks.
 
no one died because of negligent federal action (or inaction)
Bull****. The very fact that they let those guns walk after the first program failed is THE contributing factor, it was a F&F GUN with a F&F SERIAL NUMBER. You have no future credibility.
 
Bull****. The very fact that they let those guns walk after the first program failed is THE contributing factor, it was a F&F GUN with a F&F SERIAL NUMBER. You have no future credibility.

and you have no reason to whine

... unless you can present an argument that but for the availability of the walked weapon that agent would still be alive
and that is one you are without the ability to make
 
and you have no reason to whine

... unless you can present an argument that but for the availability of the walked weapon that agent would still be alive
and that is one you are without the ability to make
You don't even get it. If a civilian hands a KNOWN criminal or otherwise facilitates that criminal's possession of a gun they own as much of the crime committed as the actual shooter, regardless of whether they "could have gotten one elsewhere". Upholding the law isn't "whining" if anything, whining is the pathetic attempts to dismiss a multitude of FELONIES committed by the nations highest ranking legal officer.
 
no one died because of negligent federal action (or inaction)
no rational person would believe the person who killed the agent would not have otherwise been armed

so, you guys have moved from holder lied
to its Obama's fault (even tho the shrub started the motion)
to we did not monitor the assault weapons in mexico
to an agent died because this weapon was available (and presumably, there were no other weapons available)

again, don't stop
this weak pin the tail on the donkey attempt is quite amusing

The DOJ (and all federal law enforcement) has a simple job, find and arrest criminals. Many like the "bigger fish" idea, letting peons commit crime hoping to find the next level in an organized crime gang, its easier (and safer) than trying to get an undercover agent in the loop. I personally do not agree with it, since it treats the crime victims of the peons as "necessary collateral damage".

The issue with fast and fuzzy, to me, is that there was no "big fish" involved. As with the drugs, it makes no sense to let 1,000 street dealers wipe each other out (with others in the crossfire), just to try to find out who "Mr. Big" is. The "big guy" is not going to pay using a personal check or CC, its a cash game using anonymous mules, untracable cash and pre-arrainged drops.

This was a political ploy to try to get tougher gun laws enacted by providing "proof" that US weapons are "critical" to the cartels violence. As even you can see, it was insane to simply watch crime being committed, yet make no effort to stop it, people were killed as a result.

Sure the weapons were available from other sources, but why pay any LEO to watch crime and not stop it? That is what the Holder deal is all about - WHY were these LEOs told NOT to do their jobs? I will gladly take a federal check from the DOJ to be a "very special, special agent" and I will promise not to arrest anybody, ever, and not to tell anybody why either, ever. ;-)
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom