Jump to content
To change color scheme, click on themes at bottom of page ×
RightNation.US
Sign in to follow this  
kestrel

Obamagate Gets Worse With DAMNING Declassified Memo

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

MontyPython
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, AntonToo said:

Umm yes, do you even read what I post?

 

Yes, and it's sad how incredibly uninformed you are.

 

5 hours ago, mjperry51 said:

Wilful suspension of disbelief, ,  ,

 

Yup.

 

5 hours ago, AntonToo said:

You were responding to me telling Monty that he sounds delirious because he is saying that what he states as fact cannot be concievably questioned.

Can point to any similar delirium on my part?

 

*sigh*

It's not that facts "cannot be conceivably questioned". In fact I stated exactly the opposite: Idiots can, and often do, dispute/contradict/question the facts. It doesn't render the facts any less factual, nor the idiots any less idiotic.

And just because I'm dying of curiosity, let's look at a single example: Fast & Furious (and the subsequent murder of Brian Terry): Is it your contention that it "didn't happen"? Or is it your contention that it "wasn't illegal"?

 :coffeenpc: 

 

Edited by MontyPython

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AntonToo
27 minutes ago, MontyPython said:

 

Yes, and it's sad how incredibly uninformed you are.

 

 

Yup.

 

 

*sigh*

It's not that facts "cannot be conceivably questioned". In fact I stated exactly the opposite: Idiots can, and often do, dispute/contradict/question the facts. It doesn't render the facts any less factual, nor the idiots any less idiotic.

And just because I'm dying of curiosity, let's look at a single example: Fast & Furious (and the subsequent murder of Brian Terry): Is it your contention that it "didn't happen"? Or is it your contention that it "wasn't illegal"?

 :coffeenpc: 

 


Trying to reason with Monty is clearly a one way trip to nowhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MontyPython
Posted (edited)
1 minute ago, AntonToo said:


Trying to reason with Monty is clearly a one way trip to nowhere.

LOLOLOL

Tell yourself whatever keeps you happy, LOL.

Now answer the question: Is it your contention "Fast & Furious" never happened, or that it "wasn't illegal"? I really want to know.

:lol: 

 

Edited by MontyPython
  • Haha (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kestrel
1 hour ago, MontyPython said:

LOLOLOL

Tell yourself whatever keeps you happy, LOL.

Now answer the question: Is it your contention "Fast & Furious" never happened, or that it "wasn't illegal"? I really want to know.

:lol: 

 

Really Monty...you can't fix stupid but kudos for the attempt 

Kestrel... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zurg
1 hour ago, MontyPython said:

Now answer the question: Is it your contention "Fast & Furious" never happened, or that it "wasn't illegal"? I really want to know.

:lol: 

 

Two options: 1) He won’t answer at all, 2) He’ll pretend answer by quoting your post but not answer the question. 
 

And then he’ll go back to blaming you for folding up like an empty suit because you didn’t answer HIS question (even though you did). 
 

Real life. Just can’t make this up. There really are people like Anton around. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JerryL
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, AntonToo said:

Mods I forget, is namecalling ok? I kinda want to name call too :)

What name did he call you, Nancy?  Saying that you are something...i.e. you are stupid and naive...is NOT name calling.  It is assigning attributes to you based on your mindlessly partisan posting.  Saying "Hey, dip-<censored>" or "Hey, IncompetentFoolToo" is name calling.

So, since you dodged it with Monty, are you claiming that Fast and Furious did not happen or was legal and that a Federal Officer did not lose his life when shot with a weapon run through Fast and Furious?

Edited by JerryL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AntonToo
Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, MontyPython said:

LOLOLOL

Tell yourself whatever keeps you happy, LOL.

Now answer the question: Is it your contention "Fast & Furious" never happened, or that it "wasn't illegal"? I really want to know.

:lol: 

 

Why would I? You simply ignore what I post and go back to lololling and re-assserting same refuted, baseless garbage....I suspect it's because you don't even know HOW to  support your positions, HOW to look up facts and HOW to link to sources.

You front confidence with your lololling, but behind it are inabilities to meaningfully fact-find and support positions in this medium. It's both sad to see and frustrating to attempt to squeeze out a substantive exchange.

 

Want to do it again? ok. F&F was run  by Arizona U.S. Attorney's Office and Arizona ATF office. F&F's gunwalking tactics were used in 2006, before Obama's administration in an operation called Wide Reciever. Whatever the criticisms of these tactics maybe, there was no evidence that these operations were conducted for any nefarious reason boyond law enforcement.

You are claiming Obama's cabinet did something criminal having to do with F&F? Ok, specifcy what it was and *GASP* support it with evidence.

Edited by AntonToo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MontyPython
55 minutes ago, AntonToo said:

Why would I? You simply ignore what I post and go back to lololling and re-assserting same refuted, baseless garbage....I suspect it's because you don't even know HOW to  support your positions, HOW to look up facts and HOW to link to sources.

You front confidence with your lololling, but behind it are inabilities to meaningfully fact-find and support positions in this medium. It's both sad to see and frustrating to attempt to squeeze out a substantive exchange.

 

Want to do it again? ok. F&F was run  by Arizona U.S. Attorney's Office and Arizona ATF office. F&F's gunwalking tactics were used in 2006, before Obama's administration in an operation called Wide Reciever. Whatever the criticisms of these tactics maybe, there was no evidence that these operations were conducted for any nefarious reason boyond law enforcement.

You are claiming Obama's cabinet did something criminal having to do with F&F? Ok, specifcy what it was and *GASP* support it with evidence.

:o

???

I guess I should thank you for proving my point and actually providing a link to that proof. Question: DID YOU EVEN BOTHER TO READ THE ARTICLE YOU LINKED?? Hmmm...Maybe you can't read. It would explain LOTS of your posts over the years. So I'll try to help you understand:

Yes, in 2006 the Bush administration engaged in a gun-walking program called "Wide Receiver". Nobody has denied that. But of course it has no bearing whatsoever on our conversation, unless your "point" (:rolleyes:) is supposed to be "Two Wrongs Make A Right". Is that what you're trying to say?

Because if not, then keep reading further into the article. It includes the facts I'VE pointed out about Fast & Furious: It was criminal...investigators lost track of thousands of those guns, many of which made their into the hands of Mexican drug cartels...Border Patrol agent Brian Terry was murdered with one of them...etc etc etc.

So again, I thank you for proving my point.

:2up: 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AntonToo
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, MontyPython said:

:o

???

I guess I should thank you for proving my point and actually providing a link to that proof. Question: DID YOU EVEN BOTHER TO READ THE ARTICLE YOU LINKED?? Hmmm...Maybe you can't read. It would explain LOTS of your posts over the years. So I'll try to help you understand:

Yes, in 2006 the Bush administration engaged in a gun-walking program called "Wide Receiver". Nobody has denied that. But of course it has no bearing whatsoever on our conversation, unless your "point" (:rolleyes:) is supposed to be "Two Wrongs Make A Right". Is that what you're trying to say?

Because if not, then keep reading further into the article. It includes the facts I'VE pointed out about Fast & Furious: It was criminal...investigators lost track of thousands of those guns, many of which made their into the hands of Mexican drug cartels...Border Patrol agent Brian Terry was murdered with one of them...etc etc etc.

So again, I thank you for proving my point.

:2up: 

 

I didn't say F&F was right or wrong, that a policy question. What I said is that I don't see any nefarious behaviour or criminality that you claim.

Edited by AntonToo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MontyPython
3 minutes ago, AntonToo said:

I didn't say F&F was right or wrong, that a policy question. What I said is that I don't see any nefarious behaviour or criminality that you claim.

OK, thanks for finally clarifying your position: You see nothing illegal about secretly running guns across an international border...with the direct intention of seeing how many make their way into the hands of murderous drug cartels...at least one of which is used to murder an American law officer. You don't consider that criminal behavior.

That is, of course, insane. But at least you finally answered the question.

:nuts: 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AntonToo
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, MontyPython said:

OK, thanks for finally clarifying your position: You see nothing illegal about secretly running guns across an international border...with the direct intention of seeing how many make their way into the hands of murderous drug cartels...at least one of which is used to murder an American law officer. You don't consider that criminal behavior.

That is, of course, insane. But at least you finally answered the question.

:nuts: 

The operations were conducted by the law enforcement authorities to go after cartels, and no I don't consider that to be "criminal", though maybe you can point to some law prohibiting such enforcement methods under relavant jurisdictions.

Edited by AntonToo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MontyPython
31 minutes ago, AntonToo said:

The operations were conducted by the law enforcement authorities to go after cartels, and no I don't consider that to be "criminal", though maybe you can point to some law prohibiting such enforcement methods under relavant jurisdictions.

Anton - You've answered the question. In fact you've now answered it a second time: no I don't consider that to be "criminal".

That's all I wanted to know. Thank you for your honest answer. You see nothing criminal about secretly smuggling guns across international borders with the specific intent of getting at least some of them into the hands of murderous drug cartels, who in fact used at least one of them to murder an American law officer. You don't think that's criminal.

And that says it all.

:nuts: 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mjperry51
2 minutes ago, MontyPython said:

Anton - You've answered the question. In fact you've now answered it a second time: no I don't consider that to be "criminal".

That's all I wanted to know. Thank you for your honest answer. You see nothing criminal about secretly smuggling guns across international borders with the specific intent of getting at least some of them into the hands of murderous drug cartels, who in fact used at least one of them to murder an American law officer. You don't think that's criminal.

And that says it all.

:nuts: 

 

Let's take Anton's position on this and play.

Let's say there were no codified LAWS broken in Fast & Furious. So according to Anton it's no LEGAL big deal. We'll ignore the obvious ethical or moral "violations" that happened.

Since no LAWS would have been broken by the supposed Trump/Russia "collusion" (collusion is not a 'crime', as we leaned from the Mueller investigation) Anton should have no issue with it -- even if it did happen (which it didn't)

Right Anton??

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AntonToo
2 minutes ago, mjperry51 said:

Let's take Anton's position on this and play.

Let's say there were no codified LAWS broken in Fast & Furious. So according to Anton it's no LEGAL big deal. We'll ignore the obvious ethical or moral "violations" that happened.

Since no LAWS would have been broken by the supposed Trump/Russia "collusion" (collusion is not a 'crime', as we leaned from the Mueller investigation) Anton should have no issue with it -- even if it did happen (which it didn't)

Right Anton??

Criminal is by DEFINITION an act in contradiction to law within apropriate jurisdiction. Monty specifcally claimed that something criminal was done and I'm just directly addressing his claims.

Now you may say that these gunrunning tactics were bad policy for Obama and his AG to allow to go on initially, but I don't see what is amoral about law enforcement going after cartels if they belive the tactics will help them do it.

 

As far as Trump - I never proposed that collusion that didn't rise to the level of criminal conspiracy is a crime or that Trump should be impeached for it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mjperry51
20 minutes ago, AntonToo said:

Now you may say that these gunrunning tactics were bad policy for Obama and his AG to allow to go on initially, but I don't see what is amoral about law enforcement going after cartels if they belive the tactics will help them do it.

So it's your position illegally funneling American arms to Mexican Cartels is okay because the legal entities are going after the bad guys. They're allowed to break laws to catch law breakers. In other words laws don't apply to law enforcement.

Someone should tell all the protesters they have no gripe according to you.

Amazing.

 

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...