Obama invokes executive privilege over Fast and Furious documents

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Jun 20, 2012 10:14 am

Obama invokes executive privilege over Fast and Furious documents - latimes.com

WASHINGTON — Just as the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform was about to vote Eric H. Holder Jr. in contempt of Congress for failing to comply with a subpoena for documents in the flawed Fast and Furious gun-tracking case, President Obama asserted executive privilege and backed up the attorney general’s position in refusing to turn over the material.

...

Sen. Chuck Grassley, ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, asked how Obama could assert executive privilege "if there is no White House involvement?"Outstanding question.

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Wed Jun 20, 2012 10:22 am

They need a Vin Diesel quote.

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Wed Jun 20, 2012 11:09 am

Here's a link with the letter sent to obama requesting the privilege be invoked. I was reading it this morning.

I thought it was interesting.

Obama Executive Privilege Asserted Over Fast And Furious Documents

chonsigirl · Post by **chonsigirl** » Thu Jun 21, 2012 5:28 am

I'm just glad I got my research finished Monday at the Archives, when things like this happen they clamp down on any access to materials involving specific topics.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Jun 21, 2012 6:22 am

God Bless the First Amendment, eh?

Wandrin · Post by **Wandrin** » Thu Jun 21, 2012 8:04 am

There is plenty of precedent for invoking executive privilege. Bush used it to shield the SEC from investigation over the Bernie Maddof matter and to shield the DOJ over an investigation. Clinton used it to shield the DOJ. In these cases, the White House denied any direct involvement in the matters being investigated, but asserted exec priv to keep documents secret.

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Thu Jun 21, 2012 10:43 am

I wouldn't worry about it too much. Guns don't kill people, people do. Or so I've been told.

Meanwhile in the libertarian universe, there would be no gun control -- you could buy automatic weapons at Walmart without a background check. Also, free trade with mexico is also in line with free market. So if you like what you see, the free market has plenty more where that came from.

At bottom really what you have is a bunch of politicians who are cynically attacking government, wasting resources, in the name of government efficiency. They don't care about gun control, the only motive is to get Holder fired. This isn't to get someone more qualified on the job, but a new guy even less experienced. The whole point isn't to fix something but to break it.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Jun 21, 2012 10:58 am

feel better now?

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Thu Jun 21, 2012 11:05 am

Accountable;1397259 wrote: feel better now?
I do. I like what he had to say.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Fri Jun 22, 2012 3:34 am

Well, as a foreigner struggling to follow an story in a democratic system often different from his own, yaaarg's interpretation fit with my own: party politics before justice, country or anything else except self interest. I dunno. US politics seems to me to be getting more and more polarised. And they keep using religious language...

Brrrr.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Jun 22, 2012 5:20 am

Clodhopper;1397438 wrote: Well, as a foreigner struggling to follow an story in a democratic system often different from his own, yaaarg's interpretation fit with my own: party politics before justice, country or anything else except self interest. I dunno. US politics seems to me to be getting more and more polarised. And they keep using religious language...

Brrrr.
"yaaarg's interpretation"?? :-2 He didn't interpret anything. He vented about a completely different and barely related issue.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Fri Jun 22, 2012 5:23 am

:wah:

Back to the drawing board then!

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Fri Jun 22, 2012 6:28 am

Wasn't this some insane idea that you catch gunrunners by selling guns to them brought in when bush was in power?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Jun 22, 2012 6:47 am

gmc;1397483 wrote: Wasn't this some insane idea that you catch gunrunners by selling guns to them brought in when bush was in power?
Yup. That's how it started. They also found they couldn't keep track of the guns.

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Fri Jun 22, 2012 8:02 am

Accountable;1397476 wrote: "yaaarg's interpretation"?? :-2 He didn't interpret anything. He vented about a completely different and barely related issue.

I'm sorry I didn't focus so much on your conspiracy theory. It seemed a bit silly considering the entire court proceeding is clearly a clown show.

I'm curious how you have a problem with selling guns to Mexican drug dealers in the first place, since this is the libertarian position on drugs and arms. Or do you think the market should place a moral value on what can be bought and sold, who can buy and sell? That's not free market capitalism is it?

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Fri Jun 22, 2012 8:09 am

gmc;1397483 wrote: Wasn't this some insane idea that you catch gunrunners by selling guns to them brought in when bush was in power?

The funny thing is, the GOP won't try to prosecute the Bush administration folks about the practice.

Wandrin · Post by **Wandrin** » Fri Jun 22, 2012 8:52 am

gmc;1397483 wrote: Wasn't this some insane idea that you catch gunrunners by selling guns to them brought in when bush was in power?

They did actually uncover some interesting data before losing track of the guns, as I recall. One thing was that in those states/cities where the police sold confiscated guns to wholesale dealers after they were used as evidence, and where the state/city had lax gun laws, a large percentage of those guns crossed the border and into the hands of the cartels and criminals.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Jun 22, 2012 9:56 am

yaaarrrgg;1397506 wrote: I'm sorry I didn't focus so much on your conspiracy theory. It seemed a bit silly considering the entire court proceeding is clearly a clown show.

I'm curious how you have a problem with selling guns to Mexican drug dealers in the first place, since this is the libertarian position on drugs and arms. Or do you think the market should place a moral value on what can be bought and sold, who can buy and sell? That's not free market capitalism is it?
I just love how partisans condemn one party, then become apologists when their party carries on the same behavior.

Since you called it mine, what is the conspiracy theory you imagine I have?

As I understand it - and I'm having trouble finding anything approaching objective descriptions - the CIA has been taking confiscated firearms and selling them to drug dealers in Mexico. The purpose is lost in a fog of political spin. Regardless, it's hardly free market capitalism.

Do I infer correctly that you support what's happening with Fast & Furious?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Jun 22, 2012 9:57 am

yaaarrrgg;1397507 wrote: The funny thing is, the GOP won't try to prosecute the Bush administration folks about the practice.
True. They seem to think that their motive was more noble, but I can't see how the motive was really different.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Jun 22, 2012 10:00 am

Wandrin;1397513 wrote: They did actually uncover some interesting data before losing track of the guns, as I recall. One thing was that in those states/cities where the police sold confiscated guns to wholesale dealers after they were used as evidence, and where the state/city had lax gun laws, a large percentage of those guns crossed the border and into the hands of the cartels and criminals.
I wonder how many of those people involved thought seriously about using the same general plan to find terrorists by selling them C4 explosives. I'm guessing quite a few.

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Fri Jun 22, 2012 10:39 am

Accountable;1397523 wrote: I just love how partisans condemn one party, then become apologists when their party carries on the same behavior.

Since you called it mine, what is the conspiracy theory you imagine I have?

The implication is that Obama is hiding something. What can he hide? The problem with his administration is out in the open: he's bent over backwards trying to please the GOP. Then he's beaten up for implementing their idea.

Accountable;1397523 wrote:

As I understand it - and I'm having trouble finding anything approaching objective descriptions - the CIA has been taking confiscated firearms and selling them to drug dealers in Mexico. The purpose is lost in a fog of political spin. Regardless, it's hardly free market capitalism.

Do I infer correctly that you support what's happening with Fast & Furious?

No, I agree it was a botched plan. My point is that in a libertarian world, the "solution" is fairly humorous in comparison. Rather than have the CIA sell the guns, it would be Walmart selling the guns. Take everything wrong with the debacle and multiply it by 100.

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Fri Jun 22, 2012 10:51 am

Accountable;1397525 wrote: I wonder how many of those people involved thought seriously about using the same general plan to find terrorists by selling them C4 explosives. I'm guessing quite a few.

Interesting point. Maybe the people planning this thought that guns didn't really kill people. I think similarly the following ideas sound equally silly when put in c4 terms:

"C4 doesn't kill people, people kill people"

"if we outlaw C4, only outlaws will have C4"

"first the government will take our C4, then they will take our freedom"

:)

P.S. C4 can be classified as arms, and the Constitution gives everyone a right to own it.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Jun 22, 2012 12:53 pm

yaaarrrgg;1397539 wrote: The implication is that Obama is hiding something. What can he hide? The problem with his administration is out in the open: he's bent over backwards trying to please the GOP. Then he's beaten up for implementing their idea.Hiding something is not a conspiracy.

I simply pointed out that he's claiming that he never knew nuttin' about F&F, then declares executive privilege. I've since learned that such claims can cover Holder under the right circumstances, and that someone else (who?) determines whether his declaration is good or not.

yaaarrrgg;1397539 wrote: No, I agree it was a botched plan. My point is that in a libertarian world, the "solution" is fairly humorous in comparison. Rather than have the CIA sell the guns, it would be Walmart selling the guns. Take everything wrong with the debacle and multiply it by 100.I don't understand how the point relates here.

yaaarrrgg;1397543 wrote: Interesting point. Maybe the people planning this thought that guns didn't really kill people. I think similarly the following ideas sound equally silly when put in c4 terms:

"C4 doesn't kill people, people kill people"

"if we outlaw C4, only outlaws will have C4"

"first the government will take our C4, then they will take our freedom"

:)

P.S. C4 can be classified as arms, and the Constitution gives everyone a right to own it.
I didn't post it to be silly, and I indicated as much. Our gov't have helped arm Mexican criminals. The criminals used the arms to kill US gov't officials. I wouldn't put it past our gov't to sell explosives to known terrorists with the same stated goal as F&F, and with similar results.

Wandrin · Post by **Wandrin** » Fri Jun 22, 2012 1:21 pm

The goal of Project Gunrunner was to figure out how all of those guns were getting into Mexico. It is a given that there were flaws in the program - serious flaws. It's an election year, so the whole thing has become politicized. I get that part. What I'm not seeing is what the US is doing with the information that was gathered. Where are the changes to stop the flow of guns? Where are the arrests and prosecutions of the arms dealers in the US?

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Fri Jun 22, 2012 1:55 pm

Accountable;1397566 wrote: I didn't post it to be silly, and I indicated as much. Our gov't have helped arm Mexican criminals. The criminals used the arms to kill US gov't officials. I wouldn't put it past our gov't to sell explosives to known terrorists with the same stated goal as F&F, and with similar results.

Yes, that sort of thing does happen. Sometimes not as effectively, such as when Reagan helped fund and train Osama bin Laden, who then killed thousands of Americans.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Jun 22, 2012 2:07 pm

yaaarrrgg;1397583 wrote: Yes, that sort of thing does happen. Sometimes not as effectively, such as when Reagan helped fund and train Osama bin Laden, who then killed thousands of Americans.
Yup. Ooooooops.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Jun 22, 2012 3:49 pm

I honestly believe this is just how the two parties own the conversation and media coverage, thought I think the media plays its part willingly knowing what happening.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Fri Jun 22, 2012 5:27 pm

Ahso!;1397608 wrote: I honestly believe this is just how the two parties own the conversation and media coverage, thought I think the media plays its part willingly knowing what happening.
Isn't it one & the same? FoxNews=Roger Ailes=Republican party. That ones just to obvious, I must be getting tired!

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Jun 23, 2012 5:39 am

AnneBoleyn;1397612 wrote: Isn't it one & the same? FoxNews=Roger Ailes=Republican party. That ones just to obvious, I must be getting tired!

You must be, not to see the same type of equation with all the major media outlets. When it became clear that Ron Paul was actually gaining real following for repub nomination, FOX fought very hard to maintain the status quo. This left/right fight is all a show - one that has apparently convinced you it's real. Major media showed anyone who was watching that they can close ranks very quickly when they think the status quo is threatened. The same is true with the Republocrats.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Sat Jun 23, 2012 7:30 am

Accountable;1397628 wrote: You must be, not to see the same type of equation with all the major media outlets. When it became clear that Ron Paul was actually gaining real following for repub nomination, FOX fought very hard to maintain the status quo. This left/right fight is all a show - one that has apparently convinced you it's real. Major media showed anyone who was watching that they can close ranks very quickly when they think the status quo is threatened. The same is true with the Republocrats.
Rude. I've been around long enough that no one pulls the wool over my eyes. I mentioned Fox because it is too easy. No one has convinced me of anything. Now stop pissing me off.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Jun 23, 2012 7:33 am

AnneBoleyn;1397631 wrote: Rude. I've been around long enough that no one pulls the wool over my eyes. I mentioned Fox because it is too easy. No one has convinced me of anything. Now stop pissing me off.:-2

I'm sorry, I didn't get the list.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Sat Jun 23, 2012 7:34 am

Accountable;1397632 wrote: :-2

I'm sorry, I didn't get the list.
They're all on the list!

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Jun 23, 2012 8:46 am

AnneBoleyn;1397633 wrote: They're all on the list!
Well then, I guess you'll have to either get used to being pissed off or stop blaming your emotional state on others.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Sat Jun 23, 2012 9:14 am

Accountable;1397637 wrote: Well then, I guess you'll have to either get used to being pissed off or stop blaming your emotional state on others.

It's your rudeness & arrogance that piss me off, your assumption you have the world figured out better than I do. Stuff it.

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Sat Jun 23, 2012 10:27 am

Accountable;1397628 wrote: You must be, not to see the same type of equation with all the major media outlets. When it became clear that Ron Paul was actually gaining real following for repub nomination, FOX fought very hard to maintain the status quo. This left/right fight is all a show - one that has apparently convinced you it's real. Major media showed anyone who was watching that they can close ranks very quickly when they think the status quo is threatened. The same is true with the Republocrats.

Paul is not electable because he sounds a bit nuts to a lot of people. I personally like him better than most the GOP, because at least he's not a sociopath and his ideas are more coherent than any one else's who's running as a republican (even though some of his economic ideas are kooky). There's no conspiracy -- he lost because he's a lousy salesman and voters are fickle.

It is funny though, Paul preached how competition and free choice would solve all our problems. He put this idea to the test in the primary election, with himself as the product. But now he's lost to competition and free choice. The fact that Paul can't win ought to be an indicator of the problem with his ideas. Clearly what was demonstrated is you can't count on the GOP base to make smart decisions. Which is the fundamental problem with Paul's economic theories. The same people running the country are driving the economy.

Are there no differences between the parties? It's true there is bait and switch. However, the movement a politician makes after election is towards the right, not towards the center. Elect a liberal, you get a centrist in office. Elect what you think is a centrist, and you will get a war-crazy fascist after the election. For example, Bush ran as a centrist or center-right (compassionate conservative remember?). Bush had a decent record of working with Democrats back in Texas, back when he was the Governor.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Jun 23, 2012 11:20 am

I agree about Paul, he giggles way too much and doesn't appear presidential. Gary Johnson on the other hand I see as a serious enough candidate.

In the end everyone's a socialist but don't like to admit it. If they weren't they wouldn't be running from it so hard.

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Sat Jun 23, 2012 11:47 am

Ahso!;1397657 wrote: I agree about Paul, he giggles way too much and doesn't appear presidential. Gary Johnson on the other hand I see as a serious enough candidate.

In the end everyone's a socialist but don't like to admit it. If they weren't they wouldn't be running from it so hard.

I'll have to look more at Gary Johnson and others. I would love to have more than two major parties.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Jun 23, 2012 12:08 pm

I'm not a libertarian per se because when you break it down, these groups (all of them) are only presenting their version of the best method of survival. The right believes of shedding the weak if they can't pull the load. That's a predictable attitude as survival of the fittest. There are arguments for and against that. The left sees use for the weak that the right appears not to. Both the left and right hate the fact that they have to love the driver of it all - capitalism. Government is fine as long as it's not influenced by corporations.

Libertarians appear to believe in socialism ("we didn't let anyone die") but believe it will come without government directing it.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Jun 23, 2012 12:18 pm

Ahso!;1397664 wrote: I'm not a libertarian per se because when you break it down, these groups (all of them) are only presenting their version of the best method of survival. The right believes of shedding the weak if they can't pull the load. That's a predictable attitude as survival of the fittest. There are arguments for and against that. The left sees use for the weak that the right appears not to. Both the left and right hate the fact that they have to love the driver of it all - capitalism. Government is fine as long as it's not influenced by corporations.

Libertarians appear to believe in socialism ("we didn't let anyone die") but believe it will come without government directing it.IOW, if we can all just have our liberty everything will work out and we'll all be okay. There won't be as many weak to carry if we make them pull the load too.

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Sat Jun 23, 2012 1:11 pm

I think the last political quiz I took classified me as a libertarian socialist, which puts me at opposite ends of the U.S. political spectrum. Though, the different approaches are more compatible than not. I don't believe "the government" is real in itself, it's a constructed idea. So, I'd be happy to vote for either socialists or libertarians... even if they disagree, they'd keep each other honest.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Jun 23, 2012 1:22 pm

AnneBoleyn;1397642 wrote: It's your rudeness & arrogance that piss me off, your assumption you have the world figured out better than I do. Stuff it.:yh_cry

yaaarrrgg;1397650 wrote: Paul is not electable because he sounds a bit nuts to a lot of people. I personally like him better than most the GOP, because at least he's not a sociopath and his ideas are more coherent than any one else's who's running as a republican (even though some of his economic ideas are kooky). There's no conspiracy -- he lost because he's a lousy salesman and voters are fickle.I'm guessing you don't watch Fox programs much. For months they changed his name to "Ron Paul, who doesn't have a chance of winning the nomination"; :wah: if he truly didn't have a chance of winning, what was the point of pointing it out every time?? The status quo pundits were almost apoplectic whenever his name came up.

yaaarrrgg;1397650 wrote: Are there no differences between the parties? It's true there is bait and switch. However, the movement a politician makes after election is towards the right, not towards the center. Elect a liberal, you get a centrist in office. Elect what you think is a centrist, and you will get a war-crazy fascist after the election. For example, Bush ran as a centrist or center-right (compassionate conservative remember?). Bush had a decent record of working with Democrats back in Texas, back when he was the Governor.Funny. I remember - gee, it must've been over 20 years ago - one of the news guys pointed out that Supreme Court justices tend to move left after their appointment.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Jun 23, 2012 2:55 pm

Ahso!;1397666 wrote: IOW, if we can all just have our liberty everything will work out and we'll all be okay. There won't be as many weak to carry if we make them pull the load too.I like that phrasing.

yaaarrrgg;1397669 wrote: I think the last political quiz I took classified me as a libertarian socialist, which puts me at opposite ends of the U.S. political spectrum. Though, the different approaches are more compatible than not. I don't believe "the government" is real in itself, it's a constructed idea. So, I'd be happy to vote for either socialists or libertarians... even if they disagree, they'd keep each other honest.

Construct or not, I can't see much being effective in the one-size-fits-all world of Washington DC.

Regardless of how good and/or effective government is, I want to see the corporate interests out of Washington before I trust any program to them.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Jun 23, 2012 3:32 pm

AnneBoleyn;1397642 wrote: It's your rudeness & arrogance that piss me off, your assumption you have the world figured out better than I do. Stuff it.It's called Forumgarden but it's actually more like a jungle. Not that that's a bad thing!

This forum will certainly challenge one's sense of decorum, that's for certain. That's why not many stay very long. You definitely have to be tough to last here. We're all rude & arrogant to some extent and we all believe we've got at least our little piece of the world figured out. The goal as I see it is to let whatever feelings become exposed and are experienced in this type of setting wash over you. Becoming familiar with emotions is not an easy task in the least. If one is going to remain an active member of this forum they might as well use what happens here as a sort of therapy because the rules are so loose and I don't see them changing any time soon. The ownership here is either ingeniously daring or horribly reckless. I'm in either way as are obviously most of the rest.

I think what FG teaches us about ourselves eventually is none of us are above or beyond "losing it" now and again. if being here doesn't make you a better person, and you let it, hopefully time spent at FG will provide some insight into human behavior to pass onto others coming after you.

Rudeness and arrogance are not "bad" traits, though it appears it's best to learn to apply them sparingly instead of in excessive amounts. There's a balancing act between emotion and reason to be achieved within each individual brave enough to take the challenge on. These traits wouldn't be there if they hadn't evolved over a relatively long time.

I think it's also worth pointing out that some people come and go quickly because they've been there, done that, and have no need to do it again.

FG brings this song to mind:

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Sat Jun 23, 2012 3:44 pm

Accountable;1397679 wrote: Construct or not, I can't see much being effective in the one-size-fits-all world of Washington DC.

Regardless of how good and/or effective government is, I want to see the corporate interests out of Washington before I trust any program to them.

I would agree. For me, it's a not a big issue where a person lives or works at. I just see the government employee as a person we hire, like any service provided under contract. I'm not strongly attached to the view that everyone "in government" work in Washington. There are advantages to having 50 different people spread out across the U.S. working in each state on local state issues. Though sometimes there are advantages to the same 50 people all being in the same room together, to share ideas, particularly if they are all working on the same type of problem. So, from my point of view the fed/state rights battle just looks like a battle over what the PO box number will be assigned to an employee. It can be anything, I'm fine with that. Of course, if large corporations are sending big checks to it, changing the PO box number won't fix the main problem of having a government work for the people.

Saint_ · Post by **Saint_** » Sat Jun 23, 2012 6:45 pm

yaaarrrgg;1397256 wrote: I wouldn't worry about it too much. Guns don't kill people, people do. Or so I've been told.

Meanwhile in the libertarian universe, there would be no gun control -- you could buy automatic weapons at Walmart without a background check. Also, free trade with mexico is also in line with free market. So if you like what you see, the free market has plenty more where that came from.

At bottom really what you have is a bunch of politicians who are cynically attacking government, wasting resources, in the name of government efficiency. They don't care about gun control, the only motive is to get Holder fired. This isn't to get someone more qualified on the job, but a new guy even less experienced. The whole point isn't to fix something but to break it.

I couldn't have said it better. Our law enforcement guys tried to track some guns to the high level crooks. It looked good on paper...didn't work so great in real life. Cut down a tree, build a bridge, and get over it.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Jun 24, 2012 6:19 am

yaaarrrgg;1397681 wrote: [...] Of course, if large corporations are sending big checks to it, changing the PO box number won't fix the main problem of having a government work for the people.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Mon Jun 25, 2012 2:51 am

Well, after catching up with this thread, I've come back to my original opinion - it's a **** storm whipped up for party political ends.

chuckle. Shame katsung won't be reading this thread. If you ever want proof that at times the US can't find its arse with both hands. Edit: and spend $300 squillion trying.

(ps we've just had a football riot in Bedford, so it's not exactly as if we're perfect or anything...)

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Mon Jun 25, 2012 2:56 am

Obama needs his own Oliver North.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Mon Jun 25, 2012 9:06 am

Ahso!;1397680 wrote: It's called Forumgarden but it's actually more like a jungle. Not that that's a bad thing!

This forum will certainly challenge one's sense of decorum, that's for certain. That's why not many stay very long. You definitely have to be tough to last here. We're all rude & arrogant to some extent and we all believe we've got at least our little piece of the world figured out. The goal as I see it is to let whatever feelings become exposed and are experienced in this type of setting wash over you. Becoming familiar with emotions is not an easy task in the least. If one is going to remain an active member of this forum they might as well use what happens here as a sort of therapy because the rules are so loose and I don't see them changing any time soon. The ownership here is either ingeniously daring or horribly reckless. I'm in either way as are obviously most of the rest.

I think what FG teaches us about ourselves eventually is none of us are above or beyond "losing it" now and again. if being here doesn't make you a better person, and you let it, hopefully time spent at FG will provide some insight into human behavior to pass onto others coming after you.

Rudeness and arrogance are not "bad" traits, though it appears it's best to learn to apply them sparingly instead of in excessive amounts. There's a balancing act between emotion and reason to be achieved within each individual brave enough to take the challenge on. These traits wouldn't be there if they hadn't evolved over a relatively long time.

I think it's also worth pointing out that some people come and go quickly because they've been there, done that, and have no need to do it again.

You talkin' to me?:-2

My one regret is making Accountable cry. Twice.:wah:

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Tue Jun 26, 2012 5:14 am

SnoozeAgain;1397751 wrote: Obama needs his own Oliver North.

OMG I loved those hearings. I started taping them every day instead of days of our lives, while i was at work.