Beat me to it. The farmer is clearly violating Monsanto's patents, even though he didn't plant the stuff.
[seriously now]
This is why all the current court rulings on Monsanto's stuff are insane.
AFAIK all the current court rulings on Monsanto's stuff involve farmers deliberately using Monsanto's seeds without a license. You can disagree with those rulings but don't imply they're something they're not.
The president and his political allies were making a big deal about American guns reaching cartels at the time (dishonestly, of course). Would I put it past Obama to deliberately send guns to Mexico in order to generate political support for his gun control policies? No. No I wouldn't.
I'm sorry, but you just placed yourself somewhere between "Bush caused/allowed 9/11" and "Obama is a Muslim". That's a conspiracy theory, and not even a good one.
One of their primary jobs is to stop gun smugglers, they tried to do this job by letting through a few shipments so they could shut down the network, letting small fish go to catch the big fish, a very common investigative tactic. They failed badly.
Failed? No, not really. It wouldn't be a big scandal if they were trying something legitimate and failed. They forced retailers to break the law and then they closed the operation. They didn't even try to follow the guns, and nobody seems to know what the point of the operation was supposed to be or what the plan was. Nobody seems to know anything at all.
The point was to shut down the gun smuggling ring, the DOJ has long said they preferred to shut down smuggling networks instead of gun buyers, the Phoenix ATF tried to do this and failed badly.
Were they woefully incompetent and disorganized? Sure. But to claim they didn't have the basic intent of stopping gun smuggling is absurd. You're making it sound like they had some other nefarious motive (which you can't even identify) instead of the obvious explanation of incompetency.
Your description of the operation is false. I guess that is where your interpretation differs from mine. They let a lot more than "a few shipments" go, and they made no effort to catch the small fish or the big fish.
If they made no effort to catch anyone than what's your theory on what they were doing?
So, rather than admit they made no effort to catch the criminals, you want to sidetrack the conversation to what my theory is. As if you care what my theory is.
My theory is they wanted to track the guns across the entire supply chain so they could nab everyone, but the effed up badly, lost track of the guns, and got no one. My theory fits the evidence.
Your theory is they let smugglers smuggle the guns because....
I don't want to sidetrack the conversation, but I'm not even sure what you're arguing. What was the motive of the ATF or whoever you think authorized this operation?
And, NO, stopping smuggling does not become smuggling. Smuggling is smuggling in itself. As there was no attempt to stop said smuggling, I'm not even sure what your argument really is.
I agree that not stopping smuggling doesn't become smuggling, which makes me really confused at to how you changing your tune agreeing with that point makes you wonder what my argument is.
I didn't change my tune. I specified there is a difference between "stopping smuggling" and "smuggling". I guess that is too complicated of a theory.
Ok, when you wrote "And, NO, stopping smuggling does not become smuggling." I assumed you made a typo and meant to write "And, NO, [not] stopping smuggling does not become smuggling."
So in response to that the ATF did not smuggle, they did not let guns by smuggled across the border. They saw a bunch of straw buyers, instead of arresting the straw buyers and grabbing the guns they investigated so they could get the top level guys hiring the straw buyers and the running the whole network.
They failed, they lost track of the guns, and the guns got across the border.
By your logic any cop who lets a street dealer go in order to catch their boss is now a drug dealer themselves.
And I still have seen no reason to believe a field office would try such a half assed scheme without someone in Washington knowing about it. Since Holder and Obama have claimed documents about it are covered by Executive Privilege, I think my argument is stronger than yours.
They claim EVERYTHING is covered by Executive Privilege, as did Bush, and would Clinton if he were in office now.
That's because these operations are coordinated in conjunction with the national headquarters, and if not necessarily authorized by the head of the department, in this case the Attorney General, they are at least known by someone under him. At the least, lawyers are consulted for clarification of what is legal and what isn't. You don't seem to understand that international law isn't something to be ignored by a regional leader in Arizona.
So I don't know ATF regs to know how much of that is accurate. But lets assume that's true and some random attorney in the DOJ was consulted about it. Does that make it an administration scandal? What if that random attorney was working there when Bush was in office and so was their boss, is it still an administration scandal?
Besides, I'm not sure if international law comes into play since they didn't involve the Mexicans.
They claim executive privilege with or without a real scandal because
a) So claiming Executive Privilege doesn't become evidence of a scandal the next time when there's a real scandal they're trying to keep hidden
b) It's safer because someone in the DOJ may have known something they didn't know about, or some other scandal might exist buried in the docs
c) Even if the docs are clean it's not that hard to twist something out of context (re climategate)
d) Even if the DOJ is completely innocent, a news cycle consisting of "the DOJ has released documents in the investigation into the Fast & Furious scandal and investigators are looking through them" is super damaging to the ears of the uninformed voter.
Just consider, if a rival group with no other objective than to get you in as much trouble as possible asked to look through all your work emails for evidence that you did something wrong would you agree to it?
As a private citizen, no.
If I were the head of the Executive branch of federal government of the USA, and a leader in the Legislative branch requested this information, I would be hard pressed to justify keeping it from him or her. Maybe I would make it available only to the top leaders in that branch, but I would not ignore their legitimate inquiries that are in line with their role as spelled out in the document that created their office as well as my own.
But, then again, I would never have people who thought the Fast and Furious operation was sensible and correct actually working in my administration. I would make it clear that any idiocy like that would be grounds for immediate dismissal. But, hey, that's just my way of being the head of an organization. Following the rules that are in place, and stuff like that.
I agree, but my point wasn't that they should be more open. My point was that they're not open, they actually have some really strong motivations to be secretive even when they're innocent, and therefore being secretive isn't evidence of guilt.
And my sig is very relevant here. You are the gymnast, hoping to play down scandals of your political side. You have stated no "obvious fact" about the ATF office in Phoenix and what they don't tell Washington. Unless you work for the ATF, you know no more than I do about their inner workings. At least I'm basing my reasoning on their actions and testimony before Congress. You are basing yours on political affiliation.
I'm basing mine on the most likely scenario based on the available evidence. Snooping on Fox News' email or the AP's email, that's a scandal. Claiming states secrets in every terror related court case against the government, that's a scandal. A really bad police op executed by the ATF branch in Arizona over multiple Presidential administrations, that's a scandal, but one for the Phoenix ATF, not Washington.
And, again, you prove yourself wrong. The Fast and Furious operation was under exactly one presidential administration. The operation under Bush's administration was shut down completely, because the bad guys found out about it. Good attempt at muddying the waters though.
Now, please go away and stop wasting my time with this nonsense. You don't have to admit your guy screwed up. At this point, we all know what really happened. Bye bye.
Those specific operations were shut down when the investigations finished. But about the whole idea of gunwalking in November 2007 a letter prepared for the attorney general (under Bush) stated:
"ATF would like to expand the possibility of such joint investigations and controlled deliveries -- since only then will it be possible to investigate an entire smuggling network, rather than arresting simply a single smuggler."
So there you have it, the AG under Bush both endorsing gunwalking and saying it should be expanded. Yet when the Phoenix ATF carries through on this recommendation it becomes Obama's fault.
But this is a really simple story. It was one in a series of operations that had gone on for years. Operations that were the baby of the Phoenix ATF, maybe a couple people in Washington found out, maybe not. But the Phoenix ATF was the one who conceived of and executed them. They were well intensioned but very risky, and the last one failed badly.
Your description of the operation is false. I guess that is where your interpretation differs from mine. They let a lot more than "a few shipments" go, and they made no effort to catch the small fish or the big fish.
If they made no effort to catch anyone than what's your theory on what they were doing?
And, NO, stopping smuggling does not become smuggling. Smuggling is smuggling in itself. As there was no attempt to stop said smuggling, I'm not even sure what your argument really is.
I agree that not stopping smuggling doesn't become smuggling, which makes me really confused at to how you changing your tune agreeing with that point makes you wonder what my argument is.
And I still have seen no reason to believe a field office would try such a half assed scheme without someone in Washington knowing about it. Since Holder and Obama have claimed documents about it are covered by Executive Privilege, I think my argument is stronger than yours.
They claim EVERYTHING is covered by Executive Privilege, as did Bush, and would Clinton if he were in office now. They claim executive privilege with or without a real scandal because
a) So claiming Executive Privilege doesn't become evidence of a scandal the next time when there's a real scandal they're trying to keep hidden
b) It's safer because someone in the DOJ may have known something they didn't know about, or some other scandal might exist buried in the docs
c) Even if the docs are clean it's not that hard to twist something out of context (re climategate)
d) Even if the DOJ is completely innocent, a news cycle consisting of "the DOJ has released documents in the investigation into the Fast & Furious scandal and investigators are looking through them" is super damaging to the ears of the uninformed voter.
Just consider, if a rival group with no other objective than to get you in as much trouble as possible asked to look through all your work emails for evidence that you did something wrong would you agree to it?
And my sig is very relevant here. You are the gymnast, hoping to play down scandals of your political side. You have stated no "obvious fact" about the ATF office in Phoenix and what they don't tell Washington. Unless you work for the ATF, you know no more than I do about their inner workings. At least I'm basing my reasoning on their actions and testimony before Congress. You are basing yours on political affiliation.
I'm basing mine on the most likely scenario based on the available evidence. Snooping on Fox News' email or the AP's email, that's a scandal. Claiming states secrets in every terror related court case against the government, that's a scandal. A really bad police op executed by the ATF branch in Arizona over multiple Presidential administrations, that's a scandal, but one for the Phoenix ATF, not Washington.
The primary job of the ATF is not to smuggle guns to drug cartels in foreign countries, which is in effect what took place.
One of their primary jobs is to stop gun smugglers, they tried to do this job by letting through a few shipments so they could shut down the network, letting small fish go to catch the big fish, a very common investigative tactic. They failed badly.
Therefor it's reasonable to believe an ATF office wouldn't violate international law on their own.
So not stopping smugglers becomes, smuggling, which then becomes violating international law, I suppose next you'll say that by violating international law they were trying to start a war which obviously was decided by the executive branch?
Your sig says you hate hypocrisy, yet you're doing mental gymnastics to avoid the obvious fact that an ATF office could decide on and execute a big operation without telling Washington.
If the guy who runs the division of the Post Office in my area decides it makes sense to smuggle drugs as an attempt at catching drug smugglers, I would assume someone working in a position directly under the Postmaster General would have been queried if the plan was sensible. That person would have then brought it up to the Postmaster General at a staff meeting. Since that is the whole point of having a hierarchy in an organization.
I would have used a mail metaphor. Either way hierarchies sometimes mean information doesn't travel as high as it should, particularly in law enforcement where telling more people can jeopardize the operation.
Sorry, I thought that was implied. The "guy who runs the division of the Post Office" would be using official mail and postal planes/semi-trailers in his sting operation. Did you think I meant that the "guy who runs the division of the Post Office" buys a ticket on Delta to personally smuggle drugs as an attempt at a drug sting operation?
I assume the guy who runs the division of the Post Office would be mainly concerned with delivering mail, a sting operation (even for people smuggling through the mail) would be far enough outside his regular duties it would go up a couple rungs. The primary job of the ATF to catch firearm smugglers, therefore it's reasonable to think that an ATF office wouldn't bother to ask Washington, that's why I was complaining about the metaphor.
If the guy who runs the division of the Post Office in my area decides it makes sense to smuggle drugs as an attempt at catching drug smugglers, I would assume someone working in a position directly under the Postmaster General would have been queried if the plan was sensible. That person would have then brought it up to the Postmaster General at a staff meeting. Since that is the whole point of having a hierarchy in an organization.
I would have used a mail metaphor. Either way hierarchies sometimes mean information doesn't travel as high as it should, particularly in law enforcement where telling more people can jeopardize the operation.
I don't for one second believe it was a department chief in Phoenix that decided to dust off the folder from Bush's administration, decided the failure of the previous operation was caused by having control of the situation, and so removed the control and came up with Fast and Furious, with no notice going up the chain of responsibility.
Here's another story, they tried the operation a couple times before (not giving a damn about what administration it was), they tried to do it one more time cutting out the Mexicans this time because they thought there might have been a leak there. And they didn't report up the chain of responsibility because they weren't required to and they can do things themselves without Washington bureaucrats double checking everything they do.
Sure you can assume everyone is lying and there's some big conspiracy. Or you can accept that it was screwup in the Phoenix office and Washington had nothing to do with it.
But the actions of a Phoenix ATF director over multiple administrations doesn't have a damn thing to do with Obama.
He just heard about it on the news, I guess -- like a lot of other things his administration has done lately.
Why stonewall the congressional investigation then? Why withhold documents? Why should people believe the Administration's story when they're hiding evidence from congressional investigators?
Does the Obama administration withhold documents they shouldn't? Yes, so do all other administrations whenever a scandal pops up, but the Obama administration is just as bad if not worse in a lot of cases and deserves a ton of blame and criticism for not being more transparent.
But you didn't say they were withholding info or obstructing the investigation, you said "hundreds of innocent Mexicans murdered by guns the administration supplied to drug cartels", a claim that is false.
They told me if I voted for Romney the government would engage in unconstitutional wiretapping.
Nothing is more amusing to me that watching leftists trying to pretend this is all okay because it's Fox and not what they consider real news organizations. I hope you remember this moment when the next Republican president takes office.
Nothing more amusing than watching conservatives complaining about "leftists trying to pretend this is all okay" when virtually none are.
Sure those people exist, but in my experience that level of hypocrisy is a confined to a marginalized fringe on the left.
Hell, just out of curiosity I checked out what Daily Kos had to say. It's mostly schadenfreude and laughing at the hypocrisy but no where do I see them pretending it's ok.
It wasn't Holder, it was the Phoenix ATF.
If the guy who's been delivering your mail for 20 years drops one of your letters in the mud is it Obama's fault via the Postmaster General?
It's just hundreds of innocent Mexicans murdered by guns the administration supplied to drug cartels. How is that a scandal?
Meanwhile, Mitt Romney made his dog ride on top of the family car once. Sorry widows and orphans of murdered Mexicans, you lose.
It wasn't the administration, it was the Phoenix branch of the ATF.
And they didn't supply the guys to the cartels, they allowed individual smugglers to cross the border with the hopes they could shut down the entire network.
Look at it for what it was, a very high risk Arizona ATF operation that failed badly, and left the Mexicans carrying the bag. Similar operations also occurred under Bush with the difference that they were smaller and the Mexicans were involved. But the Bush or Obama administrations didn't have anything to do with it.
Is it a scandal? Sure, a major law enforcement operation failed spectacularly and let a lot of guns into Mexico.
But the actions of a Phoenix ATF director over multiple administrations doesn't have a damn thing to do with Obama.
blind people were stupid.
That's a huge exaggeration. I will say a lot of scientists believe we need to better regulate those activities, because it's very easy for humans to have a massive influence on the planet we need to be aware of what we're doing and what impacts it's causing. But 'for humans to stop everything they are doing', I can't think of a single scientist who suggests that, I'm sure they kinda exist, but only as a tiny uninfluential fringe who shouldn't impact this discussion.
If it was a critical safety issue I might agree. But not only had this safety issue had existed since the plant opened 50 years ago, but the regulator had actually known about it for over a year before even deciding that it was a serious safety issue. So it's hard to make the argument that it was such a critical safety issue that it had to be addressed immediately in November of '07 instead of waiting a month or two until a shutdown could be properly prepared for so the medical isotope supply would be unaffected.
I don't like overruling the regulator but this is a rare case where the regulator created a safety issue by following a strict interpretation of the rules and ignoring common sense.
For God's sake, stop researching for a while and begin to think!
