Shadow 7D
Member
Neverwinter is just here to stir
*controversy*
*controversy*
From the dates of the documents under executive privilege, I'll give you the possibility that they found out after the operation completed. That also makes an assumption about the presence of evidence in the documents, when there is no external indication of such.I think you're being willingfully ignorant to the fact that several times when presidents have evoked EP, dare I say, they in fact were hiding something. In fact, you mentioned some of them down below.
I also believe you're making the leap that just because EP was evoked that everyone is assuming Obama was the decision maker. Youre making it an all or nothing issue. The documents could flesh out that Obama knew nothing until after the fact and that Holder only knew after the program was in full progess and his subordinates initiated everything.
I take it you weren't here for the A=B=C conversation.The report also says its incomplete because lack of documents. But somehow you're willfully ignoring that part.
So you have one example out of many in which the assumption that people are making would actually be true. That's not good odds, unless you're a horrible gambler.The correct conclusion to the logic is that when EP was evoked on this issue, it was in fact hiding and covering up government involvement that was greater than initially reported before and after the initial investigation.
In short, the EP was in fact a Govt cover up.
I listed another using Nixon. Again, a Govt cover up.
You specifically asked if I thought that I was more intelligent than everyone else like Christopher. I have never in this thread made a claim. The only claim is on your part, making that association with intelligence.I never said that or eluded to it either. Again, you're making giant leaps here.
I asked you if you really think you're the Chistopher Columbus in this matter. Everyone was wrong but Columbus was right.
Whoa Whoa Whoa..... I NEVER accused anyone of being less intelligent!! I asked if you thought you more intelligent than everyone else.
You have done things like that several times in this thread. Twice with me from just one post of mine.
In essence, this study greatly complicates claims of the deficit model, which predicts that individuals with higher levels of education will possess greater trust in science, by showing that educated conservatives uniquely experienced the decline in trust. This interesting result may indicate that educated conservatives have been most affected by the NR’s identity work.
Yes, we now have the foundation for the assumption that every use of executive privilege since Eisenhower was a coverup for criminal direction from the President.By your own examples, EP had historically been unsed as a Govt cover up and at least one time in recent modern history, it was used to cover up the Presidents' own involvment in crime.
You have just made the case even stronger that the EP is hiding something... based on history, the govenments involvement including, but not limited to, the possibility of hiding the Presidents and/or Holders involvement.
This was precisely the reason for the importance of having it released before the elections.Old Fuff said:Looking backwards, it would seem obvious that releasing the document would not have reflected favorably on the president and/or his advisors.
And precisely why the documents were withheld.This was precisely the reason for the importance of having it released before the elections.
From the dates of the documents under executive privilege, I'll give you the possibility that they found out after the operation completed. That also makes an assumption about the presence of evidence in the documents, when there is no external indication of such.
The most repetitive commenter that I have been responding to has been assuming that the president was the orchestrator. Would they have made that same assumption for the other EP cases I mentioned?
I take it you weren't here for the A=B=C conversation.
.So you have one example out of many in which the assumption that people are making would actually be true. That's not good odds, unless you're a horrible gambler
You specifically asked if I thought that I was more intelligent than everyone else like Christopher. I have never in this thread made a claim. The only claim is on your part, making that association with intelligence.
I posted an article as a counterexample showing how intelligence is not the only cause for disagreement on an issue:
And then I addressed your belief in the sample of "everyone" that involves the posters in this thread as being unsound.
If you don't think facts are consensus-based, why would you bring up the number of people who agreed as a factor?
There's not much point to agreeing to an analogy that has already been dismantled.
Yes, we now have the foundation for the assumption that every use of executive privilege since Eisenhower was a coverup for criminal direction from the President.
This was precisely the reason for the importance of having it released before the elections.
What you fail to understand is that to some people, ANY criticism of ANY attempt to impose a new AWB is "political", even a highly illegal one that kills hundreds of people.I think youre being blinded by the assumption that this investigation is solely the result of political motivation and has nothing to do with finding the truth because its the right thing to do.
(In stopping a black market you choke the source. In the drug running model, the kingpin is the source and street dealers are small fry. In the gun running model, the street traffickers are the source supplying the kingpin and the kingpin is probably replaceable anyway. Applying the drug model--go for the big fish--is the wrong answer to the US to MX gunrunning problem.)
A cover up is much more limited than the position that has been repeatedly posted here.Oh.. I was here. I take it you werent here when you listed examples of when EP was used and it in fact was a Govt cover up.
You've doubled from one to two out of how many?I also listed Nixon in which he was directly involved.
How about another? Clinton lost in court just as Nixon did and not so shockingly, it proved that he was hiding something that he was directly involved in.
I have two now. I just doubled my odds. And not so oddly, you didnt mention either one. Did you forget about those two? Or did they not fit your side of the debate?
LOL... I didnt claim that you claimed that. I simply asked you a question of which you still havent answered. BTW, Chistopher Columbus was a pretty smart guy, and in the minority of opinion on the matter, and was right.
danez71 said:Do you honestly think that you are so much more intelligent than eveyone else that only you have a clear understanding?
So the refutation of the opening of your question still stands.Yes you did. It tried to associate a persons religion and political affiliation to not beliving or being more skepticle of science. I'm not going there.
And you would be just as wrong, trying to make conclusion about a population based on a self-selected sample.Actually, I said 'extreme minority'; not "everyone".
Let's see, the issue of intelligence has already been debunked with the link which you have no objection to. The fundamental characteristic that you have been harping on regarding Columbus, namely his extreme minority opinion, has also been debunked.Well I dont think facts are concensus based. That should be evident when I brought up Christohper Columbus. But statisically, usually if most people think A=B=C, they are right. Usually. Christopher Columbus is the counter example. And thats way I asked you if you thought you were the Christopher in this debate.
But it hasnt been dismantled. It was made stronger by your own examples and the two that I gave that you left out.
So what you're saying is that from those two times out of all the uses, it would be safe to make the assumption that this incident is not like the vast majority of the uses, but of the minority?See.. now there you go again. All or nothing. Its doesnt HAVE to be EVERY use of EP. Why did make that giant leep?
But what we do have the foundation of is that in fact, in recent mordern history, EP has been used as a Govt cover up AND to hide the Presidents own actions at least two times.
It's confessed outright in the second post in the thread. "The guys at the top get off and the whole matter can be quickly forgotten before the election."Thats your assumption. Not fact.
I think youre being blinded by the assumption that this investigation is solely the result of political motivation and has nothing to do with finding the truth because its the right thing to do.
From the standards expressed in your posts, the Terry's don't find their son's life important as part or their support for a new AWB.Deanimator said:What you fail to understand is that to some people, ANY criticism of ANY attempt to impose a new AWB is "political", even a highly illegal one that kills hundreds of people.
NOTHING is more important than a new AWB... not even human life.
I don't know their opinions on an AWB.From the standards expressed in your posts, the Terry's don't find their son's life important as part or their support for a new AWB.
I haven't the slightest doubt that Nixon was guilty of that of which he was accused and much more besides.By the way, would you like to support or refute danez71's statement that you would have probably made the same assumption about presidential guilt for the other EP cases mentioned?
It was in your posts that you named people AWB supporters who didn't agree with your assumption about the guilt of Obama and Holder. You do know their opinions on an AWB because they made the press release agreeing with the conclusion of the IG report. You also know that they don't care about the death of their son and the Mexicans, because they don't agree with your assumptions regarding Obama and Holder's guilt.Deanimator said:I don't know their opinions on an AWB.Neverwinter said:From the standards expressed in your posts, the Terry's don't find their son's life important as part or their support for a new AWB.
I DO know Obama's and Holder's.
It wasn't Terry's parents who intentionally sent firearms to known criminals in order to generate support for an AWB.
It was Obama and Holder.
That doesn't answer the question. No one here doubts that Nixon was guilty. To rephrase: Was Bush guilty for Tillman's death? The deficiency in the Katrina response? The mistreatment at Abu Ghraib?Deanimator said:I haven't the slightest doubt that Nixon was guilty of that of which he was accused and much more besides.Neverwinter said:By the way, would you like to support or refute danez71's statement that you would have probably made the same assumption about presidential guilt for the other EP cases mentioned?
danez71 said:Thats your assumption. Not fact.
I think youre being blinded by the assumption that this investigation is solely the result of political motivation and has nothing to do with finding the truth because its the right thing to do.
k_dawg said:All that matters is that the media will cover up for BO for a few more days now.
What many of the people who make this claim neglect to mention about their position is that even if the documents being withheld by executive privilege are released and contain no evidence to prove the supposition, they will still claim that Obama and Holder are guilty. The reluctance of response to the thought experiment earlier in the thread shows this.DammitBoy said:Is it possible that the President or Holder initiated the gun walking program?
Yes.
Do we have all the documents that could prove or disprove this supposition available from the "transparent" Obama White House?
No.
Why?
Because the White House is protecting itself or Holder by withholding documents from the public and congress.
...even if the documents being withheld by executive privilege are released and contain no evidence to prove the supposition...
Arizona, New Mexico and Texas? Of those, the only one that went to Obama was NM. AZ has twice as many electoral votes as NM, and TX 7 times. Both are not going to Obama, so it would be pointless pandering.Given that Obama is (apparently) in a tight race to keep his job, wouldn't it be advantageous to have released the papers, and in so doing defused the issue? While it is clear that F&F is nowhere close to the top of the list, it could make a critical difference in a close vote in those states that have a common border with Mexico, and with other voters who are associated with various Gun Rights organizations.
As was mentioned earlier in the thread, this does have shades of the Birthers. When the Birther movement got into full swing, the short form birth certificate was already released. From that point, the reasonable people who actually cared about evidence knew that the Birther movement was going nowhere. The people who cannot be reasoned with were the ones who continued to claim that Obama wasn't a citizen. It is pointless to reason with them because their opinions persist despite the facts.Given this reality, it would seem that if they were clean of anything damaging it would be logical to release them. While it is true that some individuals would not change their mind regardless of the evidence, it is probable that not every voter meets this description.
It is unlikely that Obama can make a case for innocence by hiding favorable evidence, and clearly it’s unlikely his advocates can successfully do it for him.
At this point, with the release of the IG report, the ones who persist in their presumption of guilt(e.g. Deanimator above your post, or DammitBoy below) do match that description of those who will not change their mind regardless of the evidence.
What many of the people who make this claim neglect to mention about their position is that even if the documents being withheld by executive privilege are released and contain no evidence to prove the supposition, they will still claim that Obama and Holder are guilty. The reluctance of response to the thought experiment earlier in the thread shows this.
.Quote:
Originally Posted by danez71
Thats your assumption. Not fact.
I think youre being blinded by the assumption that this investigation is solely the result of political motivation and has nothing to do with finding the truth because its the right thing to do
Quote:
Originally Posted by k_dawg
All that matters is that the media will cover up for BO for a few more days now.
What many of the people who make this claim neglect to mention about their position is that even if the documents being withheld by executive privilege are released and contain no evidence to prove the supposition, they will still claim that Obama and Holder are guilty. The reluctance of response to the thought experiment earlier in the thread shows this.
That doesn't answer the question. No one here doubts that Nixon was guilty. To rephrase: Was Bush guilty for Tillman's death? The deficiency in the Katrina response? The mistreatment at Abu Ghraib?
You can't say "yes" to the question, because it makes you out to be a wild conspiracy theorist. You can't say "no", because it further supports the earlier allusions to identity-based guilt.
At this point, with the release of the IG report, the ones who persist in their presumption of guilt(e.g. Deanimator above your post, or DammitBoy below) do match that description of those who will not change their mind regardless of the evidence.
....is that even if the documents being withheld by executive privilege are released and contain no evidence.....
Originally Posted by Neverwinter
From the dates of the documents under executive privilege, I'll give you the possibility that they found out after the operation completed. That also makes an assumption about the presence of evidence in the documents, when there is no external indication of such.