Seriously, how about both of you taking a step back....again....and relax. keep it civil

There's so much more than is reported in that one fortune article. In a title wave of misconduct, the article does nothing but grasp at straws to help save face for Holder and the Obama administration.

Fortune's "investigation" is quickly made inaccurate by the number of firearm sellers that tried not to sell guns to people because they were obvious straw purchases. Specifically, I remember reading about a .50 cal rifle that a dealer didn't want to sell but was encouraged by the ATF to allow the sale to go through.

Here's one specific gun store owner speaking out:
Fast and Furious: Gun store owner opens up - latimes.com
So, we have multiple accounts of ATF wrong-doing, a gun store owner speaking out about being pushed by the ATF to allow straw purchases, the Dept. of Justice hiding behind the sham that is Executive Privilege and refusing to release all the documents, and not to mention a Border Patrol Agent killed by one of the very guns the ATF allowed to be illegally sold.... But, one cover-up article in Fortune invalidates all of that?

Yes, unless you are a racist...

I'd guess you'd know a racist, right?

In accordance with TDF's request, I shall refrain from responding in kind. You have revealed much of yourself with that statement...

seems like you already ignored the request.

Paul, if it's not too difficult...instead of just claiming that I ignored TDF's request...could you please tell me (tell all of us) what was uncivilized about the one post I made after TDF asked us to calm down?

Sure Jim, John made some points and said that the fortune article "invalidates all of that". Your reply to that statement was "unless your a racist". That implies everyone who believes the article has merit is a racist - see, you can't help it with your hate.

That's what I thought you were referring to, just wanted to clarify.

Paul, have you ever in your life heard of "sarcasm"? I was not saying that everyone who believes in teh article is a racist. I was poking fun at the fact (irrefutable fact) that many influential liberals are saying those opposed to Holder (and Obama) are racist.

In other words, I was telling Johnny that he must be a racist if he discounted the pro-Holder article.

Paul, one ideological side has an annoying habit of playing the race card when things don't go their way. That would be the liberal side. Your side.

Paul, I often use sarcasm and hyperbole to make my points. Because you didn't realize that, let me clarify...I was most certainly not calling anyone a racist. I was pointing out how absurd it is to label those who disagree with you as "racists". You seem to agree it's absurd to call those who disagree with you a racist. And it's what liberals do all the time. It's exactly what you do with tea partiers.

Paul, you said it was hateful for me to assume those who disagree with me are racists. That's NOT what I was doing, but I agree that would be hate-mongering. Yet that's precisely what you do, when you call tea partiers racists. So why am I hate mongering if I inaccurately call someone a racist, but it's OK for you to do it? Please enlighten me as to why you, and only you, have been bestowed with this right?

I'm not bestowed w/any right here other than what John and Kevin allow. Show me where I've called/implied anyone is a racist or gotten into any discussions about race (other than above). And as I've said previously, the times I bring up the tea party is when you assign a view/action that you don't like to everyone on the left and imply or state that everyone on the left thinks/feels the same way. In response I state something along the lines of "so does that mean if a teabagger has XXXX feeling, all do"

[QUOTE=PaulS;946956][QUOTE=Jim in CT;946593

I'm not bestowed w/any right here other than what John and Kevin allow. Show me where I've called/implied anyone is a racist or gotten into any discussions about race (other than above). And as I've said previously, the times I bring up the tea party is when you assign a view/action that you don't like to everyone on the left and imply or state that everyone on the left thinks/feels the same way. In response I state something along the lines of "so does that mean if a teabagger has XXXX feeling, all do"[/QUOTE]

"In response I state something along the lines of "so does that mean if a teabagger has XXXX feeling, all do"[/"

No, that is most certainly not what you do. You said, independent of anything I said, that in your opinion, a large percentage of tea partiers are racist. And your proof was that you saw a photo of someone holding a racist sign at a tea party rally. Some proof. Especially given that there are confirmed cases of liberal imposters attending tea party rallies with racist signs. That's liberal tolerance, let me tell you.

There are absolute, confirmed cases of liberals making racist signs, and posing as tea partiers. They did that in the hopes that some folks would be simple-minded enough to paint all tea partiers with the racist brush. I'm not saying that the racist sign you saw was necessarily held by a liberal imposter. But it's ridiculous, absolutely ridiculous, to say that a large group of people is racist because of what is, at best, an insignificant minority.

When I say "liberals do this", or "liberals do that", (for example, I might say that liberals believe that mass murderers have a greater right to live than unborn babies". Not every single liberal believes that, but a huge majority of them do.

My observations are based on love, compassion, and common sense.

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;946962]Isn't the whole point of this thread showing your hypocrisy? It is about the Dems. walking out on a vote. I (and I later saw that Spence asked b/f me) asked if the Repubs. ever did it and you ignored the question. A quick search shows that they did it a few years ago. So no party is better than the other but not in your eyes.

This is going nowhere fast.....Embargo On...