Arizona strikes back: State investigates feds over gun-running


PDA






PowerG
January 22, 2012, 01:46 PM
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/jan/21/arizona-strikes-back-state-investigates-feds-over-/

"Arizona's state legislature will open its own investigation into the Obama administration's disgraced gun-running program, known as "Fast and Furious," the speaker of the state House said Friday."

If you enjoyed reading about "Arizona strikes back: State investigates feds over gun-running" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
wbwanzer
January 22, 2012, 01:53 PM
Sounds good to me.

xfyrfiter
January 22, 2012, 04:36 PM
It's about time that someone took these holier than thou azzhats to task.

Shear_stress
January 22, 2012, 06:17 PM
"Arizona's state legislature will open its own investigation into the Obama administration's disgraced gun-running program, known as "Fast and Furious," the speaker of the state House said Friday


Sounds good to me as well. I'm sure they'll be equally zealous in investigating the Bush Administration's disgraced Operation Wide Receiver gun running program, in which guns were allowed to "walk" to Mexico between 2006 and 2007.

armoredman
January 22, 2012, 06:45 PM
Shear, Wide Receiver didn't get anyone killed, was small in scope, DID have the Mexican government involved, and was immediately terminated when it was discovered it wasn't working. Now that you've thrown your red herring out there to try to confuse the issue, perhaps we can get back to the actual story at hand, the one where we have high ranking DoJ officials taking the Fifth Amendment in Congressional testimony. Ya know, the one where the top cop in America gets caught in perjury, that one? Yeah...
I would love to see some of the individuals involved arrested and tried for violations of state law, but I can also get every single one who could possibly face such charges will have been moved out of state by then, and fed.gov won't extradite them. :)

Shear_stress
January 22, 2012, 07:35 PM
Shear, Wide Receiver didn't get anyone killed, was small in scope, DID have the Mexican government involved, and was immediately terminated when it was discovered it wasn't working. Now that you've thrown your red herring out there to try to confuse the issue,

Red herring? Wide Receiver ran nearly two years. It was not small in scale, it was smaller, involving about 600 guns versus 2000, as if that makes a difference in one's moral calculation. Thankfully no one in the US was killed, but those weapons went to Mexico where the people who let them "walk" knew they would be used as part of a vicious and bloody conflict.

perhaps we can get back to the actual story at hand, the one where we have high ranking DoJ officials taking the Fifth Amendment in Congressional testimony

I'm sorry, but the actual story is the fact that under two administrations the federal government deliberately let weapons flow into an armed conflict that occasionally spills across the border. I know this is an election year, but the sooner we are honest with ourselves about the actions of our government, regardless of who's in the White House, the sooner we can help put an end to these misadventures. Selective outrage will get us nowhere.

NCsmitty
January 22, 2012, 07:51 PM
Selective outrage will get us nowhere.

Our outrage will hopefully get rid of the most corrupt and inept administration in my long memory.


NCsmitty

we are not amused
January 22, 2012, 08:24 PM
Red herring? Wide Receiver ran nearly two years. It was not small in scale, it was smaller, involving about 600 guns versus 2000, as if that makes a difference in one's moral calculation. Thankfully no one in the US was killed, but those weapons went to Mexico where the people who let them "walk" knew they would be used as part of a vicious and bloody conflict.


I'm sorry, but the actual story is the fact that under two administrations the federal government deliberately let weapons flow into an armed conflict that occasionally spills across the border. I know this is an election year, but the sooner we are honest with ourselves about the actions of our government, regardless of who's in the White House, the sooner we can help put an end to these misadventures. Selective outrage will get us nowhere.

Another example ofsomeone trying to shut down this thread too.

I wonder what some people seem to fear about this story?

Perhaps it really does go right into the White House. At least that seems to be what some fear.
These are two links that I found that describe operation Wide Receiver. I have posted them before, and will again most likely.
http://http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=46714 (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=46714)
http://http:
//www.theoutdoorwire.com/features/224570 (http://www.theoutdoorwire.com/features/224570)

And here is another one,http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-national/wide-receiver-ci-it-had-nothing-to-do-with-bush-or-even-doj?CID=examiner_alerts_article

Perhaps, if you will read these articles, you will understand the differences. Till then, it seems like you are just playing a political partisan card.

Shear_stress
January 22, 2012, 08:42 PM
Perhaps, if you will read these articles, you will understand the differences. Till then, it seems like you are just playing a political partisan card.

Bull, and it would help your argument if your links weren't from blatantly partisan sources. It's perfectly clear that I'm arguing for fairness and consistency and against the kind of selective outrage that will only come back to haunt us. Fact: guns were allowed to walk during Bush and Obama Administrations. Those responsible should pay.

If we have gotten so buried in the political muck that we become blind to the misdeeds of our government--no matter what side they claim to be on--we are in trouble.

JFrame
January 22, 2012, 08:56 PM
Shear, Wide Receiver didn't get anyone killed, was small in scope, DID have the Mexican government involved, and was immediately terminated when it was discovered it wasn't working.


Yeah...But other than that, they were identical...! ;)



.

Powerglide
January 22, 2012, 08:57 PM
If it's illegal, then, it goes for everybody. Period

Shear_stress
January 22, 2012, 08:58 PM
Yeah...But other than that, they were identical...!

So which was the one that didn't involve the ATF letting guns walk? ;)

But I guess it's okay as long as you give the Mexican government a heads up.


If it's illegal, then, it goes for everybody. Period

Absolutely. This is not kindergarten and the whole "it's okay if so and so does it" thing shouldn't be part of a rationale discussion.

JFrame
January 22, 2012, 09:13 PM
So which was the one that didn't involve the ATF letting guns walk? ;)

But I guess it's okay as long as you give the Mexican government a heads up.

There was actually an attempt made to track the guns in OWR, while there was no such effort in OF&F. This indicates a totally different intent to the two programs. Yes, and the fact that the Mexican government was informed of OWR in progress shows a decidedly different tack also.


.

PowerG
January 22, 2012, 09:18 PM
It is true that guns were allowed to walk during both operations. There are major differences in the follow-ups that were taken as a result, however. Attempts were made during Wide Reciever to track some of the guns, which turned out to be mostly unsuccessful. After it was realized the guns were getting away (the most accurate estimates appear to be somewhere between "300+" up to around 450), the operation shifted into the Hernandez investigation, in cooperation with the Mexican government. This operation failed mostly due to investigative shortcomings of the Mexican police. At this point the tactics were, by consensus, abandoned due to the poor results. A few prosecutions were pursued, the number was around 10 IIRC.

The methods were brought back into use when Fast and Furious was begun. No serious attempts were made to track the guns, other than through informants. Concerns were raised that the operation was counterproductive by line agents, at which point their jobs were threatened (only somewhat obliquely). Guns were clearly getting away into Mexico, with no abatement of the F&F program. The program was halted when it became clear that a U.S. LEO had been murdered and guns that had been allowed to walk were found at the crime scene. When congressional investigations were begun, false statements were submitted to these investigations. These are the facts, devoid of any partisan slant.

I would wholeheartedly agree that if any crimes are discovered at any point in either operation then those responsible should be prosecuted. I would also state that it appears at present that the operation undertaken under the Bush administration was a poorly thought out, poorly run law enforcement operation. I refused to believe it at first, but now I believe that it's very possible that the motives behind the one run under Obama's had more insidious motives. YMMV.

JFrame
January 22, 2012, 09:21 PM
I would wholeheartedly agree that if any crimes are discovered at any point in either operation then those responsible should be prosecuted. I would also state that it appears at present that the operation undertaken under the Bush administration was a poorly thought out, poorly run law enforcement operation. I refused to believe it at first, but now I believe that it's very possible that the motives behind the one run under Obama's had more insidious motives. YMMV.


Well said, Sir -- and those are my conclusions also. http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/standart/good3.gif


.

Shear_stress
January 22, 2012, 09:23 PM
There was actually an attempt made to track the guns in OWR, while there was no such effort in OF&F.

There were poor attempts to track guns in both operations: they just tried to use jerry-rigged GPS devices in FF instead of the jerry-rigged RFID devices of WR.

When congressional investigations were begun, false statements were submitted to these investigations.

True and they should be punished to the extent possible.

Great post, PowerG. However, don't ascribe to malice what can more easily be ascribed to incompetence. I don't know, it's possible that FF was an attempt by a new administration wanting to look tough on crime by thinking they could do the same thing "better" than their predecessors. Stupid.

JFrame
January 22, 2012, 09:29 PM
No, there were poor attempts to track guns in both operations: they tried to use jerry-rigged GPS devices in FF instead the jerry-rigged RFID devices of WR.



Yeah. like trying to avoid tip-offs from the other side of the border.
Maybe the later folks


Just read PowerG's post -- he summed things up perfectly.

Anything beyond that is sheer conjecture at this point till all the facts come out (if ever) -- points on which everyone can go around in circles, with no resolution.


.

Shear_stress
January 22, 2012, 09:47 PM
Just read PowerG's post -- he summed things up perfectly.

Anything beyond that is sheer conjecture at this point till all the facts come out (if ever) -- points on which everyone can go around in circles, with no resolution.

Agreed.

Ky Larry
January 23, 2012, 08:02 AM
The only thing that will sort this mess out is to start putting people on the witness stand, under oath, and start asking direct questions. The prospect of an extended stay in Lewisburg Federal Pen (not Club Fed) will loosen a lot of tongues. Let the chips fall where they may.If one of our political prostitutes has broken the law, they belong in jail, regardless of party affliation.

publius
January 23, 2012, 09:56 AM
I'm sorry, but the actual story is the fact that under two administrations the federal government deliberately let weapons flow into an armed conflict that occasionally spills across the border. I know this is an election year, but the sooner we are honest with ourselves about the actions of our government, regardless of who's in the White House, the sooner we can help put an end to these misadventures. Selective outrage will get us nowhere.

I can see the connection between the two programs. Guns were walked in both. Both were run by the same people in Arizona. In both cases, those people kept their jobs.

I find it hard to believe that Lanny Breuer did not see the connections between the two programs, don't you? He must be the only person in America. Or he must be lying. Which do you suppose it is?

azrn
January 23, 2012, 12:26 PM
what our goverment needs to do is stop running our lives and just enforce the constitution like they are sworn to do and all this would not be happening. azrn

SharpsDressedMan
January 23, 2012, 06:11 PM
I'm still wondering why, in this day of superior technology, micro tracking devices could not have been put in the buttstocks of guns needing to be tracked in sting operations, etc. Anyone got an answer?

MistWolf
January 23, 2012, 06:19 PM
Because micro tracking technology is flawed and range is very limited

publius
January 23, 2012, 06:51 PM
I'm still wondering why, in this day of superior technology, micro tracking devices could not have been put in the buttstocks of guns needing to be tracked in sting operations, etc. Anyone got an answer?

Oddly enough, Jon Stewart does (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-june-21-2011/the-fast-and-the-furious---mexico-grift).

JFrame
January 23, 2012, 07:07 PM
Oddly enough, Jon Stewart does (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-june-21-2011/the-fast-and-the-furious---mexico-grift).

Man -- that was scathing...Funny, but scathing! http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/artists/mother_goose/MG_102.gif


.

PowerG
January 23, 2012, 07:11 PM
From what I've read that was actually the problem. (And that skit is hilarious.)

EddieNFL
January 23, 2012, 07:21 PM
Anything beyond that is sheer conjecture...

The foundation of internet forums.

7.62 Nato
January 23, 2012, 11:59 PM
I'm still wondering why, in this day of superior technology, micro tracking devices could not have been put in the buttstocks of guns needing to be tracked in sting operations, etc. Anyone got an answer?
Because that was never their intent.

jerkface11
January 24, 2012, 12:20 AM
Great post, PowerG. However, don't ascribe to malice what can more easily be ascribed to incompetence.

I'm sure it's a coincidence that members of the administration were trumpeting the number of guns recovered in Mexico that had been smuggled out of this country. Can't possibly be that they were smuggling them out so they could try for more gun control laws.

JFrame
January 24, 2012, 07:27 AM
I'm sure it's a coincidence that members of the administration were trumpeting the number of guns recovered in Mexico that had been smuggled out of this country. Can't possibly be that they were smuggling them out so they could try for more gun control laws. There was also that communique coming out of the Obama administration some time ago, informing the Brady Bunch that they were working "under the radar" to advance the cause of greater gun control.


.

armoredman
January 24, 2012, 09:20 AM
Man, that Jon Stewart skit was...404 Not Found...bummer.

Neverwinter
January 24, 2012, 11:17 PM
There was also that communique coming out of the Obama administration some time ago, informing the Brady Bunch that they were working "under the radar" to advance the cause of greater gun control.


.
Did the administration release it, or did the Brady bunch release it?

JFrame
January 25, 2012, 12:28 AM
Did the administration release it, or did the Brady bunch release it?

I don't remember.


.

jerkface11
January 25, 2012, 12:31 AM
Yay our thread derailer is here to pick nits.

MECHAGODZILLA II
January 25, 2012, 12:55 AM
Agreed. Nobody is above the law, even the most high priest of the ACLU.

publius
January 25, 2012, 07:53 AM
Man, that Jon Stewart skit was...404 Not Found...bummer.

Try again. It is still working for me.

Jon Stewart on Fast and Furious (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-june-21-2011/the-fast-and-the-furious---mexico-grift)

Neverwinter
January 25, 2012, 02:06 PM
I don't remember.


.
All of the references that I've seen were sourced from Sarah Brady's accounts. Im just slightly surprised at the willingness to spread the propaganda of a dishonest anti, desperate to stem the loss of donations from her failing organization.

If there is guilt to be found, it is in legislative investigation like this and the federal one, not the statements of a woman with a history of lies regarding gun control.

Sent using Tapatalk

JFrame
January 25, 2012, 03:21 PM
All of the references that I've seen were sourced from Sarah Brady's accounts. Im just slightly surprised at the willingness to spread the propaganda of a dishonest anti, desperate to stem the loss of donations from her failing organization.

If there is guilt to be found, it is in legislative investigation like this and the federal one, not the statements of a woman with a history of lies regarding gun control.

Sent using Tapatalk


Running contrary to this narrative is that the Obama administration has made no vociferous effort to deny the account. You'd think they would be denying it left and right if it wasn't true...Not so much.

Whether the "under the radar" reference was specific to OF&F, or something else entirely, is totally up for conjecture. But the fact that the sentiment was relayed in a private meeting seems fairly uncontested.


.
.

Neverwinter
January 25, 2012, 03:58 PM
Running contrary to this narrative is that the Obama administration has made no vociferous effort to deny the account. You'd think they would be denying it left and right if it wasn't true...Not so much.

It is easy to contest that any efforts to deny the account would have ever mattered. There is no physical evidence to prove non-existence. The administration already had to deal with attacks which persisted even after physical evidence was provided. Trying to prove the non-existence of the event to people who are willing to suspend disbelief of a lobbyist with a known history of dishonesty is a losing proposition, and they refused to participate.

I'm not willing to suspend my disbelief of Brady, and prefer the current investigations.

Sent using Tapatalk

JFrame
January 25, 2012, 04:06 PM
It is easy to contest that any efforts to deny the account would have ever mattered. There is no physical evidence to prove non-existence. The administration already had to deal with attacks which persisted even after physical evidence was provided. Trying to prove the non-existence of the event to people who are willing to suspend disbelief of a lobbyist with a known history of dishonesty is a losing proposition, and they refused to participate.

The Obama administration does not have to deny an allegation because there's no point to denying an allegation.

Got it... :rolleyes:

It's certainly a convenient argument...

I'm not willing to suspend my disbelief of Brady, and prefer the current investigations.

And again -- the discussion of what the Obama administration may have said in regard to gun control can be taken separately from the discussion of OF&F. That Obama evidently wants to impose more gun control legislation can be taken on its own merits.


.

wannabeagunsmith
January 25, 2012, 04:10 PM
about darn time!!!!

Derek Zeanah
January 25, 2012, 04:12 PM
Because that was never their intent.
I've got to agree here.

The plan as we know it would have never accomplished the goals that were attributed to it. However, it would have greatly increased the percentage of guns recovered from Mexican crime scenes that could be traced back to legal purchases in the US.

Wasn't there something in the news a few years back about misstating the numbers re: Mexican crime guns? It seems to me that Fast and Furious was designed to up those numbers to make domestic anti-gun legislation more palatable.

At the cost of Mexican lives, of course.

7.62 Nato
January 25, 2012, 04:17 PM
"At the cost of Mexican lives, of course."

Actually it has been at the expense of Mexican, and American lives on both sides of the border.

JFrame
January 25, 2012, 04:20 PM
I've got to agree here.

The plan as we know it would have never accomplished the goals that were attributed to it. However, it would have greatly increased the percentage of guns recovered from Mexican crime scenes that could be traced back to legal purchases in the US.

Wasn't there something in the news a few years back about misstating the numbers re: Mexican crime guns? It seems to me that Fast and Furious was designed to up those numbers to make domestic anti-gun legislation more palatable.

At the cost of Mexican lives, of course.

Re: the bolded portion -- IIRC, the State Department announced that XX percent (I believe the number was close to 90 percent, originally) of all firearms used in Mexican drug violence came from the U.S. What they actually meant to say ( :scrutiny: ) was that all captured firearms whose origin could even be traced came from the U.S. And then, after that, they fudged on even the numbers, and pushed it down to something like 75 or 80 percent.


.

Derek Zeanah
January 25, 2012, 04:20 PM
Actually it has been at the expense of Mexican, and American lives on both sides of the bordertrue, but I think the plan failed to account for the deaths of US Federal Agents. And that was what it took for whistleblowers to speak up, too.

publius
January 25, 2012, 05:26 PM
Re: the bolded portion -- IIRC, the State Department announced that XX percent (I believe the number was close to 90 percent, originally) of all firearms used in Mexican drug violence came from the U.S. What they actually meant to say ( :scrutiny: ) was that all captured firearms whose origin could even be traced came from the U.S. And then, after that, they fudged on even the numbers, and pushed it down to something like 75 or 80 percent.


.

The original myth involved the number 90% (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/02/myth-percent-small-fraction-guns-mexico-come/)

When that one quickly became indefensible as a laughingstock, they tried scaling it back to 70% (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43389915/ns/world_news-americas/t/report-most-guns-seized-mexico-us/)

Senator Grassley got tired of all the disinformation on this topic (http://www.grassley.senate.gov/about/Focusing-on-the-Facts-of-the-ATF-Flawed-Gun-Strategy.cfm#.Tg5gd1J-1Fw.email) and he says the number is closer to 24%.

JFrame
January 25, 2012, 05:45 PM
The original myth involved the number 90% (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/02/myth-percent-small-fraction-guns-mexico-come/)

When that one quickly became indefensible as a laughingstock, they tried scaling it back to 70% (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43389915/ns/world_news-americas/t/report-most-guns-seized-mexico-us/)

Senator Grassley got tired of all the disinformation on this topic (http://www.grassley.senate.gov/about/Focusing-on-the-Facts-of-the-ATF-Flawed-Gun-Strategy.cfm#.Tg5gd1J-1Fw.email) and he says the number is closer to 24%.


Thanks for the actual numbers and links! :)


.

USAF_Vet
January 25, 2012, 07:08 PM
Why even bother prosecuting anyone over the flawed OFF? Obama would most certainly pardon anyone before they even got convicted anyway.

OFF, must have been the position their brains were in when they let this whole debacle go.

Sure, Wide Receiver was equally flawed (although didn't get any one killed (which is debatable)), but why resurrect an obviously flawed plan to begin with? Is it the same mentality that permeates modern Communists and Socialists? "It didn't work before because WE weren't in charge. Things will be different this time."

alsaqr
January 25, 2012, 08:13 PM
What AZ is doing is feel good stuff. The federal government will allow an employee to be tried in AZ court right after Ron Houriuchi is tried by the state of Idaho for murder.

Neverwinter
January 25, 2012, 08:41 PM
The Obama administration does not have to deny an allegation because there's no point to denying an allegation.

Got it... :rolleyes:
To this day, Richard Gere has never denied inserting a gerbil into his rectum. ;)

Isn't that a convenient excuse.


And again -- the discussion of what the Obama administration may have said in regard to gun control can be taken separately from the discussion of OF&F. That Obama evidently wants to impose more gun control legislation can be taken on its own merits.
Why does the uncorroborated word of the Brady bunch count as a merit?

Sent using Tapatalk

Neverwinter
January 25, 2012, 08:46 PM
I've got to agree here.

The plan as we know it would have never accomplished the goals that were attributed to it. However, it would have greatly increased the percentage of guns recovered from Mexican crime scenes that could be traced back to legal purchases in the US.

Wasn't there something in the news a few years back about misstating the numbers re: Mexican crime guns? It seems to me that Fast and Furious was designed to up those numbers to make domestic anti-gun legislation more palatable.

At the cost of Mexican lives, of course.
I believe wikileaks showed an acknowledgement that much more came from South America than the US.

Sent using Tapatalk

JFrame
January 25, 2012, 08:58 PM
To this day, Richard Gere has never denied inserting a gerbil into his rectum. ;)

Isn't that a convenient excuse.

Meh...The "Obama-doesn't-have-to-defend-himself-because-you-won't-believe-him-anyway" line has been used repeatedly as a rationale by his defenders.

It's weak, but hey -- whatever floats your boat...

Why does the uncorroborated word of the Brady bunch count as a merit?

Sent using Tapatalk

Because the Obama administration won't deny it (see above).


.

PowerG
January 25, 2012, 09:49 PM
Well perhaps no more of a monolith of veracity than Sarah Brady, but HuffPo seems to believe the Obama administration isn't above some executive action on guns:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/15/obama-gun-laws-congress_n_836138.html

I have little doubt that the quote is accurate. We are after all talking about a politician talking to a supporter with some degree of influence. That's what they do, make promises. Of course he said it.

armoredman
January 25, 2012, 11:07 PM
jd, *groan*
publius, thanks, that was a riot, and depressing at the same time.
The Yahoo story would have us belive it was over Gov Brewers' book, "Scorpions for Breakfast", which I have not read.
I can assure you, if a federal agent, or any other LEO charged with a crime in AZ is arrested he will be handled like any other criminal. How do I know? Well, I've met more than one former police officer wearing orange, and not all of them are locals. If the investigation turns up indictments, they will be pursued. Perhaps we can hold them in Maricopa County Jail, where they can meet the men and women they made fun of in that famous e-mail. Think Sheriff Arpaio, or Sheriff Babeu of Pinal County would just "give 'em up" to an alphabet soup agency because they said "or else"? Not likely.

jerkface11
January 26, 2012, 12:07 AM
I can assure you, if a federal agent, or any other LEO charged with a crime in AZ is arrested he will be handled like any other criminal.

As someone else said Lon Hirochi.

Neverwinter
January 26, 2012, 10:44 PM
Meh...The "Obama-doesn't-have-to-defend-himself-because-you-won't-believe-him-anyway" line has been used repeatedly as a rationale by his defenders.

It's weak, but hey -- whatever floats your boat...

History does repeat itself, and he hasn't had good results in responding to people with irrational motivations for accusations by providing the contradicting physical evidence. That he isn't pandering to people who have consistently displayed an unwillingness to accept evidence when provided is not a vindication of a claim, it merely reflects less patience than some others. :)

Word has it that Richard Gere is back in the hospital. Nothing serious, just had a mole removed..Where is your denial, Mr. Gere? I won't be satisfied until you supply the long form medical chart. :cuss:

JFrame
January 26, 2012, 10:46 PM
History does repeat itself, and he hasn't had good results in responding to people with irrational motivations for accusations by providing the contradicting physical evidence. That he isn't pandering to people who have consistently displayed an unwillingness to accept evidence when provided is not a vindication of a claim, it merely reflects less patience than some others. :)

Where is your denial, Mr. Gere? I won't be satisfied until you supply the long form medical chart. :cuss:

So you see a direct correlation between Obama's alleged endorsement of gun control, and something about Richard Gere and a rodent?

Interesting...

Again -- whatever floats your boat...



.

Neverwinter
January 26, 2012, 11:01 PM
So you see a direct correlation between Obama's alleged endorsement of gun control, and something about Richard Gere and a rodent?

Interesting...

Again -- whatever floats your boat...



.
I'll explain it explicitly, for the people who are incapable of recognizing analogies.

These are two cases of accusations being provided by an untrustworthy source(ie. Brady and an unnamed person supposedly with access to medical info). In both cases, responding to the already incredulous source won't influence the people who've already decided that they want to believe in it despite the lack of credibility to the claim.

JFrame
January 26, 2012, 11:07 PM
I'll explain it explicitly, for the people who are incapable of recognizing analogies.

These are two cases of accusations being provided by an untrustworthy source(ie. Brady and an unnamed person supposedly with access to medical info). In both cases, responding to the already incredulous source won't influence the people who've already decided that they want to believe in it despite the lack of credibility to the claim.

I notice you have the tendency of repeating an argument over and over, as if you'll sway others by sheer repetition.

Your strategy is evidently a catastrophic failure... http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/remake/no.gif


.

Neverwinter
January 26, 2012, 11:17 PM
I notice you have the tendency of repeating an argument over and over, as if you'll sway others by sheer repetition.

Your strategy is evidently a catastrophic failure...


.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. You apparently can't make it stop denying the water exists, either. Not to mention having to explain what water is to the horse. ;)

Not a failure on my part for providing the water, or it the horse dies of thirst. As to the explanation for why Obama found it pointless to address people who wouldn't listen to evidence: QED. :cool:

JFrame
January 26, 2012, 11:20 PM
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. You apparently can't make it stop denying the water exists, either. ;)

Not a failure on my part for providing the water.

Wow -- I haven't heard you say that since the last time you said that to someone else... :cool:


.

If you enjoyed reading about "Arizona strikes back: State investigates feds over gun-running" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!