Why would you want to force-field your own planet?

The key here is to make it yours while the portal is down the first time.

Justinian I,

You're just speculating beyond your pay-grade. And attacking a straw-man: I'm not advocating anarchy nor suggesting that participants in free-markets are interested in anything in particular. Free markets espouse meritocracy regardless of the corruptibility of their participants. You sound like xeno, with no clue how free markets operate or how they produce all the groovy, sexy things that they do.

Companies with such leadership are at a disadvantage to companies who promote based on competence and productivity. The free market sorts that out better than behemoth government. Face it: Nobody is ever going to try to have sex with you.

How did they cross a line?

Congress has the authority to subpoena documents in an investigation. Holder has refused to supply the vast majority of documents subpoenaed. Holder, the highest law enforcement official of the United States, is violating the law and withholding documents from our democratically elected representatives.

How is holding a man accountable for violating the law, which he is supposed to uphold, crossing a line?

They're investigating the murder of at least one US border agent with guns the ATF illegally distributed without any intention of tracking. They're investigating guns used to kill countless Mexican citizens. They're investigating a violation of Mexico's sovereignty by the ATF and Justice Department. They're investigating lies to Congress by the Justice Department which weren't even corrected for 10 months. How is investigating these crimes, which Holder refuses to do, crossing a line?

You leveled an accusation, but where's your explanation?

People are dead. A multitude of laws have been violated. The situation wreaks of a coverup:
1) Holder has not held a single person accountable. Holder hasn't even fired a single person for incompetence.
2) Obama has been lying about the percentage of guns used in Mexican crimes [in which a firearm is used] in speeches for years--while Fast & Furious was going on.
3) Holder has refused to release almost any documents regarding this operation or even who authorized it. He's released well under 10% of relevant documents and those are mostly redacted.
4) Obama waited until the absolute last minute to reveal knowledge of the operation--an admission he lied in earlier claims that he hadn't heard of it--by claiming Executive Privilege. The Privilege claim won't stand up in court, but it won't get through court until after the election. Obama could just fire Holder if he was covering up his own involvement. Why is Obama holding up the investigation until after the election?
5) The Justice Department lied to Congress. They made absolutely no attempt to correct their lie until it was exposed nearly a year later.

Holder has refused to investigate or reveal his findings, because he obviously knew the operation was his and Obama's. No investigation was required. Nobody could be held accountable or fired because he and Obama don't want to resign. Holder hasn't revealed the names of those who created and signed off on the operation because it's himself who knew of and permitted it, and who knows, maybe Obama too. This is suggested by Obama's claiming Privilege. If nothing is being covered up, documents would be given to Congress and Republicans would look bad. Nearly all documents (and even most information on on the rest) are being withheld because they'd make Obama/Holder look bad, not Republicans.

You're arguing that Obama and Holder are doing everything they can to withhold documents which would make Republicans look bad and exonerate them in countless deaths, violation of Mexico's sovereignty, and a high-level cover-up. That's laughable on its face. It's possible. But it is NOT likely!

Holder won't investigate these crimes. You're suggesting Congress should ignore:
1) Holder violated the law and ignored their subpoena.
2) The Justice Department violated the law and lied to Congress. They only corrected their lie when it was exposed 10 months later. They were going to let the cover-up go uncorrected if they had gotten away with it.
2) Fast and Furious guns (distributed illegally by our government) have aided murderers in countless murders, including that of at least one US Border Agent.
3) Mexico's sovereignty has been violated by the US government distributing weapons across their border, without the knowledge, let alone approval, of their law-enforcement agencies who are paying an extremely high price for our war on drugs.

We have absolutely no answers from Holder regarding these violations of law. Attempts to investigate by Congress are stonewalled. If it's not a coverup, why won't Holder reveal any information to absolutely anybody?

Who could possibly be so stupid as to think this is primarily about some Democrat/Republican feud? Or that there isn't considerable evidence of a coverup? Or that there's any other way to convict or exonerate Holder/the White House but transparency (which, apparently, Obama was being ironic in claiming his administration would champion)?

Republicans and Democrats are practically the same party. Republicans focus on attacking individual liberty. Democrats focus on attacking economic liberty. Neither party repeals the unlawful infringements of our rights by the other party when they come to power. Ever.

Boehner tried really hard to put this off and avoid it ever happening because he's a member of the same aristocracy that Obama and Holder are and they try to look the other way when their scheming gets people killed and gets exposed. He could probably care less if the second amendment disappears or not; most Republicans could care less. They won't even call obvious and unlawful lies lies. They all want to play nice because it gains them more power and bribe money. They all want to play nice because the vast majority of them don't have any real concern for the Constitution, the law, or the rights of American citizens.

The notion that more than a small minority of Republicans and Democrats really passionately disagree on many issues and hate each other is just ignorant, juvenile, and stupid. That's has to be the dumbest claim of American history and current politics I've ever heard.

That some hold political motivations is absolutely no negation of the facts in this case. The vast majority of them have been unlawfully withheld from our elected representatives. I haven't heard a single honest or half-legitimate defense of Holder's lawbreaking in this case. It's a bunch of ignorant bullshit for idiot suckers to repeat.

"They revealed over 7000 documents!"

A TINY fraction of those relevant to the investigation. And, of even those hand-picked safe documents which weren't incriminating, most information was redacted.

"They've been SO cooperative already!"

A TINY fraction of the subpoenaed information is not cooperation. Though everyone who ever attempted a cover-up would, no doubt, prefer we all be gullible enough idiots to pretend this claim has any truth to it.

"This is all political."

Regardless of how political it is, how is that a refutation of the facts? Red herring! Once the facts--including Holder's violation of law--can be explained nicely, the alleged politicization of the issue can be examined. Violation of United States law is more important than anyone's opinion on political parties. Sorry.

"We already know so much!"

We don't know much about it. We don't even know who thought it up or who approved it.

"Holder ended the program!"

He also started it.

"Stuff like it was going on under Bush!"

It was not started under Bush. It was far from identical to operations under Bush. Even those, less retarded operations, were ended as unsuccessful. Regardless, Bush wasn't a champion of individual liberty, and these were entirely separate and significantly different operations. "ooo they both involve guns, they're similiar!" is the reasoning of a stupid child. And only a stupid child accepts it as obvious truth without learning about the various differences in the programs. And, again, even if there were more similarities than there are, it wouldn't exonerate Holder/Obama. If Bush is guilty of the same bullshit, I'd want to know, not defend him.

So grow up. NRA funding doesn't negate the facts of the case. Of course the NRA supports people who actually enforce gun laws and don't try to facilitate violence in order to attack individual liberty. It's not a bad thing. It does not negate the facts of the case in any way.

So grow up. Giving a few percent of subpoenaed documents does not prove innocence or negate the facts of the case in any way; in fact, it very strongly suggests a cover-up. __Either way, it's a crime.__

So grow up. Partisanship does not negate the facts of this case.

Human beings are dead because of corruption and morally indefensible acts. It's being covered up. Anyone who believes every intelligence-insulting lie that doesn't even address the facts, who is too intellectually cowardly to consider for a moment that their political babysitters might have done wrong, is a pretty rotten human being.

I hope you enjoyed my novel. I am not impressed by stupid thinking that insults our intelligence. If you completely miss the points made and refuse to discuss the facts in the future, I'll continue to happily correct you. Red herrings are not bases for rational thinking.

Instant? Hahaha.

I love how they walked out, arm in arm, putting on a big show. Like they're filled with righteous indignation that the law is being enforced.

The simple fact is that they want more power. Part of that is abolishing the 2nd Amendment, one step at a time. To this end of more power and a more perfect authoritarian state, anything is justified. [cluck] you border agents. [cluck] you Mexican law enforcement. [cluck] you civilian collateral damage. It's worth any price to them. They know he's covering for himself and likely Obama. They don't care who dies. They see Holder as a champion of the cause.

The premise of the thread is gloating over a healthcare win.

It was a complete loss.

If the word "dumbass" does not apply to this premature gloating and wrong conclusion, please inform me of the appropriate words. "Dumbass" is not banned on even basic cable in Amerika--and has never been. What standard are you using to judge appropriateness? It's not even a serious insult. It was brought to fame by Beavis and Butthead.

?

In regard for what? While he didn't invade Iraq and Afghanistan, he did bomb Libya and is more than likely interfering in Syria. He doesn't disagree with Bush's policy when it comes to bombing foreign nations, he just hasn't had the same opportunities.

While he didn't pass the patriot act, he supports it whole-heartedly and expands upon its powers at every opportunity he gets. He doesn't disagree wish Bush's policy when it comes to stripping American citizens of their rights, he just hasn't had the same opportunities.

He's a communist. He speaks openly about it. He hates free markets: He thinks success should be taxed and the government should reap the benefits of the productive. He pretends--which nobody believes--that the government can make better and more efficient decisions than the free market. It's a lie for gullible morons who want more but want to work less. It's an excuse for power. Only ignorant turds who don't deserve freedom buy into such garbage. Only intellectual lightweights raised by shitty parents buy this crap.

Bush did a massive bank bailout. That was bad. It was corrupt. It was garbage. Obama did massive public union pensions bailouts. It was corrupt. It was garbage. Obama bought into the US auto industry. It was corrupt. It was garbage. Obama is taking control of an already over-regualted and poorly-regulated healthcare/health insurance industry. It's corrupt. It's garbage.

And ALL of these things are unlawful. Obviously you disagree, but I think law is important to society.

Bush sucked. Obama is worse. If you disagree, you're definitely ignorant as all hell, ridiculously uneducated in history, and probably a child.

?

It was factually inaccurate. "deregulation" didn't crash the economy and subsequently decrease tax revenue, as the childish myth of communist pussies contends. It's not even debatable. And the money Bush wasted on wars, bad as it was, has wound down under Obama and was never on the level with what Obama wasted.

I wanted to enjoy it--I have no love for Bush or Republicans--But it was just ignorant and stupid. I have a hard time celebrating ignorance, especially in regard to such real and serious issues with such real and serious effects on human beings' rights, freedoms, and standards of living.

If you pride yourselves on ignorance and stupidity, though, I can see your point and source of mirth.

We should be so lucky.

Unfortunately, the same bad we'd mock will prevent him from obtaining office.

"Employment and manufacturing are the keys to wealth."

Government can employ everyone to manufacture! I'm coming up with great ideas!

You didn't mention independent actors in free markets increasing productivity, decreasing prices, and _creating_ wealth. You didn't mention that artificially inflating energy prices (like what you just supported) to pay for unproductive bureaucrats destroys wealth.

You're telling us about the keys to wealth while supporting means to destroy it. Cute.

Why are you wasting our time?

Nobody has argued that government doesn't mess up free markets significantly.

I've simply pointed out that your claim that free markets have been eradicated is ridiculous on its face. They still function to some great degree, hindered by government as they are.

Government's primary effect on most markets is to drastically increase the cost of doing business by drastically increasing cost-of-living and, subsequently, labor costs. Taxes and regulations further increase the cost of living/doing business. The result is things are more expensive and everyone has a bit less. The free market still functions to provide the most it can, despite this increase in costs.

You can vaguely make all the claims you want about how you feel free markets should work. I don't really care.

You are correct, Noir. But apples are a shitty measure of oil reserves either way. There's no sense in comparing them at all.

Comparing "proven reserves" to other measures is stupid.

"Proven reserves" are a stupid measure on their own, too.

You dishonest wankers deserve each other.