Obama Campaign Collecting GOP Emails
by Keith Koffler on December 14, 2011, 10:13 am
The Obama presidential campaign is launching an effort to collect Republican email addresses by inviting its supporters to submit information about their Republican associates to the Obama 2012 website.
The effort could help the Obama campaign build a database that would enable it to target Republican voters during the general election campaign. But, more perniciously, it could also become part of an Democratic effort to influence Republican primary voters to select a candidate Democrats think Obama could most easily defeat.
The Democratic National Committee last month released a video that seemed designed to damage Mitt Romney, the GOP candidate feared most by the Obama campaign.
The Obama information collection effort is cast under the mischievous guise of asking Obama supporters to “have a little fun at the expense of a Republican in your life” by signing them up to get an email from the Obama campaign ribbing them for having “inspired” the Obama supporter to donate.
The result, however, is that the Obama campaign gets a new trove of Republican email addresses that it could never have collected through voluntary submissions.
From the Obama website:
Who inspires you to give?
This holiday season, we’re giving you a chance to have a little fun at the expense of a Republican in your life by letting them know they inspired you to make a donation to the Obama campaign.
Simply enter their name and email address below. Then, we’ll send them a message letting them know they inspired you to donate.
Thank you for supporting this campaign, and happy holidays.
Important: By making a donation today, you’ll be automatically entered for a chance to have dinner with Barack and Michelle Obama. By clicking on the “Submit” button below or otherwise participating in the promotion, you agree to be bound by these Official Rules and represent that you satisfy all of the eligibility requirements.
The effort is being supported by emails from the campaign to members of the vast Obama 2012 email list urging them to participate.
One message, from Deputy Campaign Manager Julianna Smoot, also invites donors to buy something from the Obama 2012 store for their Republican friend.
Really want to fire up your GOP friends? Buy them a gift from the 2012 store. I recommend the birther mugs — they get the message across pretty well.
The email was sent Tuesday. If the Obama supporter sends the gift directly to their Republican friend, then the campaign has a new personal address for its database.
This warms the cockles of my heart, Barack Obama and his long history and reaching out to the Republicans. It's just hard to feel the heater when I'm in the back of the car.
Frazzled wrote:I notice you're not actually disputing it.
Disputing what? That they're collecting Email addresses? Or the tinfoil hate conspiracy about controlling the already totally fethed republican primary which looks like an episode of Family Guy without any whitehouse interference? I'd dispute the second part, but the website's wacky enough to do that job for me.
What? Is Obama gonna send out a letter saying that voters should reeaaaallly give Bachman another look? Maybe that's why he was late to the press conference.
Frazzled wrote:I notice you're not actually disputing it.
Disputing what? That they're collecting Email addresses? Or the tinfoil hate conspiracy about controlling the already totally fethed republican primary which looks like an episode of Family Guy without any whitehouse interference? I'd dispute the second part, but the website's wacky enough to do that job for me.
What? Is Obama gonna send out a letter saying that voters should reeaaaallly give Bachman another look? Maybe that's why he was late to the press conference.
So you're not disputing it. Thats like the 4th post yuou've made trying to obfiscate it. Are you disputing the Obama campaign is trying to get Republican emails?
Frazzled wrote:I notice you're not actually disputing it.
Disputing what? That they're collecting Email addresses? Or the tinfoil hate conspiracy about controlling the already totally fethed republican primary which looks like an episode of Family Guy without any whitehouse interference? I'd dispute the second part, but the website's wacky enough to do that job for me.
What? Is Obama gonna send out a letter saying that voters should reeaaaallly give Bachman another look? Maybe that's why he was late to the press conference.
So you're not disputing it. Thats like the 4th post yuou've made trying to obfiscate it. Are you disputing the Obama campaign is trying to get Republican emails?
It's a bull gak article from a conspiricists website that exists specifically to imply a conspiratorial theory about an unlikely and frankly illogical event that you want to believe. I'm not obfuscating gak. That's a long article and about the only part of it that I'm not saying is worthy of a darwin award is the part at the beginning where they state the only thing that isn't pure supposition.
This is now my third post calling this article some form or another of shameful. I'm not even at four yet.
Frazzled wrote:I notice you're not actually disputing it.
Disputing what? That they're collecting Email addresses? Or the tinfoil hate conspiracy about controlling the already totally fethed republican primary which looks like an episode of Family Guy without any whitehouse interference? I'd dispute the second part, but the website's wacky enough to do that job for me.
What? Is Obama gonna send out a letter saying that voters should reeaaaallly give Bachman another look? Maybe that's why he was late to the press conference.
So you're not disputing it. Thats like the 4th post yuou've made trying to obfiscate it. Are you disputing the Obama campaign is trying to get Republican emails?
It's a bull gak article from a conspiricists website that exists specifically to imply a conspiratorial theory about an unlikely and frankly illogical event that you want to believe. I'm not obfuscating gak. That's a long article and about the only part of it that I'm not saying is worthy of a darwin award is the part at the beginning where they state the only thing that isn't pure supposition.
This is now my third post calling this article some form or another of shameful.
Again, are you disputing the Obama administration is attempting to gather Republican emails?
EDIT: I went to the Obama website and tracked to the same thing this article reported.
This holiday season, we're giving you a chance to have a little fun at the expense of a Republican in your life by letting them know they inspired you to make a donation to the Obama campaign.
Simply enter their name and email address below. Then, we'll send them a message letting them know they inspired you to donate. (Don't worry—we won't hold on to any of their information.)
Thank you for supporting this campaign, and happy holidays.
Frazzled wrote:I notice you're not actually disputing it.
Disputing what? That they're collecting Email addresses? Or the tinfoil hate conspiracy about controlling the already totally fethed republican primary which looks like an episode of Family Guy without any whitehouse interference? I'd dispute the second part, but the website's wacky enough to do that job for me.
What? Is Obama gonna send out a letter saying that voters should reeaaaallly give Bachman another look? Maybe that's why he was late to the press conference.
So you're not disputing it. Thats like the 4th post yuou've made trying to obfiscate it. Are you disputing the Obama campaign is trying to get Republican emails?
It's a bull gak article from a conspiricists website that exists specifically to imply a conspiratorial theory about an unlikely and frankly illogical event that you want to believe. I'm not obfuscating gak. That's a long article and about the only part of it that I'm not saying is worthy of a darwin award is the part at the beginning where they state the only thing that isn't pure supposition.
This is now my third post calling this article some form or another of shameful.
Again, are you disputing the Obama administration is attempting to gather Republican emails?
I think I see why your'e not a mod anymore. You want me to highlight the three times now that I haven't disputed it? Can I highlight things that don't exist? Do you want me to start speaking in double negatives? Do you need me to crayon this?
Frazzled wrote:I notice you're not actually disputing it.
Disputing what? That they're collecting Email addresses? Or the tinfoil hate conspiracy about controlling the already totally fethed republican primary which looks like an episode of Family Guy without any whitehouse interference? I'd dispute the second part, but the website's wacky enough to do that job for me.
What? Is Obama gonna send out a letter saying that voters should reeaaaallly give Bachman another look? Maybe that's why he was late to the press conference.
So you're not disputing it. Thats like the 4th post yuou've made trying to obfiscate it. Are you disputing the Obama campaign is trying to get Republican emails?
It's a bull gak article from a conspiricists website that exists specifically to imply a conspiratorial theory about an unlikely and frankly illogical event that you want to believe. I'm not obfuscating gak. That's a long article and about the only part of it that I'm not saying is worthy of a darwin award is the part at the beginning where they state the only thing that isn't pure supposition.
This is now my third post calling this article some form or another of shameful.
Again, are you disputing the Obama administration is attempting to gather Republican emails?
I think I see why your'e not a mod anymore. You want me to highlight the three times now that I haven't disputed it? Can I highlight things that don't exist? Do you want me to start speaking in double negatives? Do you need me to crayon this?
Frazzled wrote:I notice you're not actually disputing it.
Disputing what? That they're collecting Email addresses? Or the tinfoil hate conspiracy about controlling the already totally fethed republican primary which looks like an episode of Family Guy without any whitehouse interference? I'd dispute the second part, but the website's wacky enough to do that job for me.
What? Is Obama gonna send out a letter saying that voters should reeaaaallly give Bachman another look? Maybe that's why he was late to the press conference.
So you're not disputing it. Thats like the 4th post yuou've made trying to obfiscate it. Are you disputing the Obama campaign is trying to get Republican emails?
It's a bull gak article from a conspiricists website that exists specifically to imply a conspiratorial theory about an unlikely and frankly illogical event that you want to believe. I'm not obfuscating gak. That's a long article and about the only part of it that I'm not saying is worthy of a darwin award is the part at the beginning where they state the only thing that isn't pure supposition.
This is now my third post calling this article some form or another of shameful.
Again, are you disputing the Obama administration is attempting to gather Republican emails?
I think I see why your'e not a mod anymore. You want me to highlight the three times now that I haven't disputed it? Can I highlight things that don't exist? Do you want me to start speaking in double negatives? Do you need me to crayon this?
Excellent. Now that we've gotten that out of the way. Have you put me on the list yet Shuma? Should I expect the re-education police or just a nice computer virus? EDIT: If the re-education police come can you get them to help me type better?
Frazzled wrote:Excellent. Now that we've gotten that out of the way. Have you put me on the list yet Shuma? Should I expect the re-education police or just a nice computer virus?
EDIT: If the re-education police come can you get them to help me type better?
Frazzled wrote:Excellent. Now that we've gotten that out of the way. Have you put me on the list yet Shuma? Should I expect the re-education police or just a nice computer virus?
EDIT: If the re-education police come can you get them to help me type better?
Kilkrazy wrote:It isn't the administration, it is the campaign.
Surely that is an important distinction.
Evidently its also illegal. Doesn't stop my public email from getting swamped with spam, but its technically illegal to send unrequested emails to people in such a context.
Thread title (as expected given the biases of the original poster) is misleading.
The campaign committee is collecting email addresses so they can try to earn more votes through mass emails.
Apparently this is supposed to be scandalous, because Obama is doing it, even though it's pretty much been done for quite some damn time with phone numbers by both parties. Really Frazzled, are you this desperate for a chance to attack Obama?
Hhmmm...I never been called nor recieved a email from either party...maybe something bein military protected me or something...but then I do have non mil emails..
Jihadin wrote:Hhmmm...I never been called nor recieved a email from either party...maybe something bein military protected me or something...but then I do have non mil emails..
I receive republican propaganda emails (hateful, spiteful things these are with their gay-bashing and so on) occasionally; then again, I've used my email to bug my congressmen about my concerns over their activities (or lack of activity) in the past, especially regarding trying to get them to do SOMETHING to help small businesses, which they seem to refuse to do...
Melissia wrote:Thread title (as expected given the biases of the original poster) is misleading.
The campaign committee is collecting email addresses so they can try to earn more votes through mass emails.
Apparently this is supposed to be scandalous, because Obama is doing it, even though it's pretty much been done for quite some damn time with phone numbers by both parties. Really Frazzled, are you this desperate for a chance to attack Obama?
Political Spam is a No-No...
The CAN-SPAM Act, signed into law in December, 2003, established the first national standards for sending commercial e-mail. Political spam e-mail, such as e-mail sent from or on behalf of a candidate for public office, or in support of a political issue or initiative, does not fall under the legal requirements of commercial e-mail spam under CAN-SPAM.
Kilkrazy wrote:That act covers businesses, not political campaigns, as far as I can understand it.
As far as I know, unless it's been criminalized recently, there's nothing at all illegal about this. It's been going on for years. I started a thread featuring one of these things four years ago, where you put your friend's name and email into the site, and they kicked out a custom video and emailed it to the person. I just posted the video on here for funzies instead of emailing it to Frazzled:
I disagree. Many if not all of the political action email lists I'm on ask you to share with your friends. As long as the email requires the person to choose to participate, and has a working opt-out function, you should be okay.
Mannahnin wrote:I disagree. Many if not all of the political action email lists I'm on ask you to share with your friends. As long as the email requires the person to choose to participate, and has a working opt-out function, you should be okay.
...And obviously if you don't want to piss off your friends, you want to be careful about what kind of stuff you send them unsolicited. I get a lot of emails, but I very rarely forward any of them just because I don't want to bother folks. My mother and I have an agreement to share particularly big ones/petitions we like a lot.
Mannahnin wrote:...And obviously if you don't want to piss off your friends, you want to be careful about what kind of stuff you send them unsolicited. I get a lot of emails, but I very rarely forward any of them just because I don't want to bother folks. My mother and I have an agreement to share particularly big ones/petitions we like a lot.
At least some of the campaign website ENCOURAGES you to piss off your Republican friends. Like in the store it advises giving them birther mugs. Even being pro-choice myself I'd probably be a bit ticked at the heavy handedness of that gesture. It says, "I don't respect your beliefs and believe you can become the butt of my jokes"
AustonT wrote:This warms the cockles of my heart, Barack Obama and his long history and reaching out to the Republicans. It's just hard to feel the heater when I'm in the back of the car.
Hey, at least you have a slushee back there!
Frazzled wrote:Maybe.
No, not "Maybe". Unambiguously, political campaigns are exempt from CAN-SPAM, as well as from the "Do Not Call" register. As always, Congress writes all laws with a "bros before hoes" mindset, where they are the bros and we are the hoes.
So far as why gather them, it's clearly to put Republicans into FEMA re-education camps. Possibly, it's to sign them up for Death Panels. Or, perhaps, it's so they can send messages to the opposition saying that the election was already in the bag, so they don't need to get out and vote. Or maybe it's to mail them absentee ballots with the wrong date on them.
Kilkrazy wrote:A cynical man might say it is against the interests of the representative democratic system to allow candidates to contact the electorate.
Wow, this is incrediably weak. I read the title and thought someone was going to get in trouble for hacking email accounts and reading the emails. No, they're just collecting email ADDRESSES, big difference than collecting emails. My response would be So What? I'm a registered Dem but I get So Damn Many phone calls from repubs telling me who I should vote for. I would be annoyed if I started getting email spam too, sure, but those are easier to filter and won't wake my day sleeping arse up at one in the afternoon.
AustonT wrote:I'm not sure about the source but...
Political Spam is a No-No...
The CAN-SPAM Act, signed into law in December, 2003, established the first national standards for sending commercial e-mail. Political spam e-mail, such as e-mail sent from or on behalf of a candidate for public office, or in support of a political issue or initiative, does not fall under the legal requirements of commercial e-mail spam under CAN-SPAM.
mmm...I could see politicians exempting themselves yet again, as they retreat to their Dachas for a nice cognac.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mannahnin wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:That act covers businesses, not political campaigns, as far as I can understand it.
As far as I know, unless it's been criminalized recently, there's nothing at all illegal about this. It's been going on for years. I started a thread featuring one of these things four years ago, where you put your friend's name and email into the site, and they kicked out a custom video and emailed it to the person. I just posted the video on here for funzies instead of emailing it to Frazzled:
Just because its been going on doesn't mean its not illegal. After all, Carrot Top is still performing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:I disagree. Many if not all of the political action email lists I'm on ask you to share with your friends. As long as the email requires the person to choose to participate, and has a working opt-out function, you should be okay.
Fair point.
What if there's no opt out option?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote:A cynical man might say it is against the interests of the representative democratic system to allow candidates to contact the electorate.
No a cynical man might say they are going to use it for a list to send to the IRS for unrelated auditing...
You need to seriously ratchet up you cynicism meter.
My cynicism meter pings hard on separate issues, and when any of them combine it rumbles. I'm a believer in the Bauman theory that the Holocaust required modernity. When beaurocrats try to find a new way to track our whereabouts, or register us in increasingly specific categories, or restrict the ownership of weapons my spider sense is in overdrive. It's not that I'm paranoid, I just think that politicians are out to get US...all of us. Collecting my anonymous web based email...not high on my list of concerns, but I suppose it could be.
AustonT wrote:or restrict the ownership of weapons my spider sense is in overdrive.
Has the latter actually happened in any actual, discernible way?
That's not a trick question, it's an honest one. The only movement that I'm aware of over the last 3 years by the Obama administration was to walk back his support of re-implementing the lapsed Federal Assault Assault Weapon Ban.
Registration requirements for more than one firearm purchase within several hundred miles of the border (I don't really care)
For a period of time before the NRA threatened to start suing, people here were being visited if they bought certain names of firearms by the local ATF jackboots. This was scary as falls right into the more paronoid beliefs of government as potential oppressor that floats in some of the more militant areas.
Laws were being floated to put taxes on a per bullet basis or track bullets per bullet. This one is a very big deal as it effectively stomps on the actual use of firearms by law abiding citizens for completely "harmless" purposes (target shooting and sports gaming).
Other laws being floated would have required each firearm be shot once with the bullet going to central database. This is already in place in California (I believe)
Birthers are those people who are still deluded that Obama wasn't born in the US.
Politicians have gotten in to trouble over their beliefs on this, because most sane people know it's a stupid ploy to attack Obama which has long since been disproven, not a serious issue.
Frazzled wrote:Registration requirements for more than one firearm purchase within several hundred miles of the border (I don't really care)
For a period of time before the NRA threatened to start suing, people here were being visited if they bought certain names of firearms by the local ATF jackboots. This was scary as falls right into the more paronoid beliefs of government as potential oppressor that floats in some of the more militant areas.
Dealer-end reporting rules were indeed changed in 2009, so you're right; I was not aware of the new reporting requirements. Certainly they fit the definition of "pushed by the Obama administration", so well done.
So far as the scary ATF visits, I'm sure this would have been a really big story that the NRA would have gotten out there in a big way. I can't find any evidence this actually happened. The only source for the home visits from the ATF angle of it was a single article on Infowars, and it's an anonymously sourced story, at that. I don't feel I can give it very much credence. But maybe there is more I missed?
Frazzled wrote:Laws were being floated to put taxes on a per bullet basis or track bullets per bullet. This one is a very big deal as it effectively stomps on the actual use of firearms by law abiding citizens for completely "harmless" purposes (target shooting and sports gaming).
This is true, b-b-b-ut. This proposed legislation you are described was actually proposed in 2007-2008, and never got any traction, anywhere, largely because it was proposed and shopped around by a group who also had the technology to sell to implement it. It's Ovaltine trying to get laws passed to get people to drink more ovaltine. Putting all that to the side, this is not federal legislation.
Frazzled wrote:Other laws being floated would have required each firearm be shot once with the bullet going to central database. This is already in place in California (I believe)
I can't find any references to this legislation, although California did introduce some new firearms restrictions in 2009, under a Republican administration. They also have proposed, but never passed, a law in California to add serial numbers to bullets and casings, but again, that's not federal.
With the exception of the reporting rules change (which really affects dealers, not end-users - right?) have there been any efforts to restrict gun rights by the Obama administration? Granted, since Frazzled found at least one example, I'm guilty of the worst sort of goalpost moving, but I'm genuinely curious what's true and what's fever swamp.
Dealer-end reporting rules were indeed changed in 2009, so you're right; I was not aware of the new reporting requirements. Certainly they fit the definition of "pushed by the Obama administration", so well done.
***Its not a bother to me personally, actually, but it coincided with Gunrunner and the nonsense about the majority of weapons in Mexico being from legal US sales.
So far as the scary ATF visits, I'm sure this would have been a really big story that the NRA would have gotten out there in a big way.
***They did. You’re on the wrong message boards. This was a local border state phenomenon. I know a person they tried to “interview.” A father of two and retiree who happened to buy two of “guns on the list” one for him and one as a present for his son to shoot.
This is true, b-b-b-ut. This proposed legislation you are described was actually proposed in 2007-2008, and never got any traction, anywhere, largely because it was proposed and shopped around by a group who also had the technology to sell to implement it. It's Ovaltine trying to get laws passed to get people to drink more ovaltine. Putting all that to the side, this is not federal legislation.
**Actually there were multiple forms of potential legislation being floating by representatives from the usual suspects. Some of them would have effectively banned bullet sales due to the charges to be implemented. Some were for tagging, some were just fees per bullet, some were both.
I can't find any references to this legislation, although California did introduce some new firearms restrictions in 2009, under a Republican administration.
***Its my understanding its law. Browning now complies with such regulation and in states where its no required they include the spent cartridge in the box. That was a scratch my head moment when I opened the box two weeks ago…
Again, I’m not nearly as concerned on this one.
Frazzled wrote:***They did. You’re on the wrong message boards. This was a local border state phenomenon. I know a person they tried to “interview.” A father of two and retiree who happened to buy two of “guns on the list” one for him and one as a present for his son to shoot.
Frazzled, you know anecdotal evidence doesn't count on the interwebz.
Frazzled wrote:***They did. You’re on the wrong message boards. This was a local border state phenomenon. I know a person they tried to “interview.” A father of two and retiree who happened to buy two of “guns on the list” one for him and one as a present for his son to shoot.
Frazzled, you know anecdotal evidence doesn't count on the interwebz.
WHAT PART OF A PERSONAL FRIEND OF MINE HAD THIS HAPPEN TO THEM THAT YOU DO NOT GET????
Kilkrazy wrote:What do you classify as a bureacrat? Your ISP has office staff who know your email address.
If you don't trust them, is there someone you might trust to create and enforce laws against misuse of your contact details?
I tend to qualify Bureacrats as those that work in the government, especially in regulatory agencies. I may have mislead you, I don't particularly trust ANYONE. But I like to put my faith in the IDEA that my elected representative is capable of protecting me...from him...its a catch 22 that makes my head hurt. BUt regulatory bodies like the FCC that make unilateral policy decisions independant of legislation bother me (although often they are at least challenged in the Judicial), or the ATF sending letters to MT firearms dealers after passing the Firearms Freedom Act, effectively overriding the legitimate state law. DEA raids on marijuana dispensaries that are legal in CA...Im not being 100% coherent but I hope you catch my drift.
Ouze wrote:
AustonT wrote:or restrict the ownership of weapons my spider sense is in overdrive.
Has the latter actually happened in any actual, discernible way?
That's not a trick question, it's an honest one. The only movement that I'm aware of over the last 3 years by the Obama administration was to walk back his support of re-implementing the lapsed Federal Assault Assault Weapon Ban.
this is a good start. The assault weapons ban was never legal in the first place.
Chicago, DC, and New York's exclusionary "restrictions", now overturned by Heller, but I've heard little about actual loosening of restrictions in those cities. California's ridiculous requirements, to LEGALLY go to a skeet competition in CA I have to mail my gun from a dealer, through CA-DOJ, and to a CA dealer and transfer it to myself...none of which is free.
Need I go on?
Frazzled wrote:Registration requirements for more than one firearm purchase within several hundred miles of the border (I don't really care)
I DO!
Ouze wrote:
For a period of time before the NRA threatened to start suing, people here were being visited if they bought certain names of firearms by the local ATF jackboots. This was scary as falls right into the more paronoid beliefs of government as potential oppressor that floats in some of the more militant areas.
Dealer-end reporting rules were indeed changed in 2009, so you're right; I was not aware of the new reporting requirements. Certainly they fit the definition of "pushed by the Obama administration", so well done.
So far as the scary ATF visits, I'm sure this would have been a really big story that the NRA would have gotten out there in a big way. I can't find any evidence this actually happened. The only source for the home visits from the ATF angle of it was a single article on Infowars, and it's an anonymously sourced story, at that. I don't feel I can give it very much credence. But maybe there is more I missed?
Those policies were really driven by the ATF management already in place, and dealer end reporting is generally what leads to those ATF visits. They are not as dramatic as jackbooted thugs breaking down your door and threatening you. I've had three visits by my local ATF field office, the guys who have come over have been polite to the point of apologetic. They had a list of fire arms they wanted to see, saw them or bills of sale in their place, bullshitted for about a half hour or left...if they raided my house likely id be too dead to object so...
Frazzled wrote:Laws were being floated to put taxes on a per bullet basis or track bullets per bullet. This one is a very big deal as it effectively stomps on the actual use of firearms by law abiding citizens for completely "harmless" purposes (target shooting and sports gaming).
That was always a pipe dream that would have been murdered by even the most activist SCOTUS.
Frazzled wrote:Other laws being floated would have required each firearm be shot once with the bullet going to central database. This is already in place in California (I believe)
Already federal for all new handguns to the best of my knowledge, I'm actually pretty OK with that one ( suprsingly) as it's not restrictive but increases the chance for enforcement or at least a trail of custody to follow.
With the exception of the reporting rules change (which really affects dealers, not end-users - right?) have there been any efforts to restrict gun rights by the Obama administration? Granted, since Frazzled found at least one example, I'm guilty of the worst sort of goalpost moving, but I'm genuinely curious what's true and what's fever swamp.
Like above, where do you thing those reports go? most people won't get past a simple paper investigation, a much smaller number are personally inspected, I'm pretty sure some are at random.
I'm not particularly nonplussed by several of those. I was nonplussed by the per bullet stuff, and the "hey lets go interrogate Joe Schmo who bought two AR-15s" for no particular reason.
Ouze wrote:There is a reason, you just don't agree with it
Yes, the same Agency charged with overseeing the publics safety in regards to fire arms took an active role in putting them into the hands of narco-terrorists, then "reacted" to the situation THEY created. /golfclap.
It's been one year, Holder is still in office and no one is in prison. WTF.
Ouze wrote:There is a reason, you just don't agree with it
Yes, the same Agency charged with overseeing the publics safety in regards to fire arms took an active role in putting them into the hands of narco-terrorists, then "reacted" to the situation THEY created. /golfclap.
It's been one year, Holder is still in office and no one is in prison. WTF.
Sorry. Sore spot.
Agreed. People are dead, lots of people, and nothing has occurred. One could argue this whole thing constitutes and act of war against Mexico.
Brain Terry came from the right area to be a distant relative (who keeps track past 2nd cousins...other than the Royal Family). When I first heard it I missed the B and though it WAS one of my cousins. So it's been yet another case I follow with great interest.
Ouze wrote:There is a reason, you just don't agree with it
Yes, the same Agency charged with overseeing the publics safety in regards to fire arms took an active role in putting them into the hands of narco-terrorists, then "reacted" to the situation THEY created. /golfclap.
It's been one year, Holder is still in office and no one is in prison. WTF.
Sorry. Sore spot.
I understand, and I'd like to point out I never defended the ATF in general and Holder in particular. I don't think the ATF should even exist: there is no aspect of their job that doesn't really already belong to the FBI. I also have no special love for Holder, who has been mediocre in most respects since taking office.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Although between Holder and Obama niether one of them should continue pursuing careers in law. I'm Actually happy Obama is President, it makes it unlikely he'll ever teach law again.
Indeed, Frazzled, if I remember correctly, was perfectly fine with brutalizing or even killing OWS protesters.
when did we start killing protesters or brutalizing them?
Besides Holdr was grilled over the ATF trying to forward the long gon policy. In fact the Senators were using how the weapon sellers were coerce into it and the fact there's still quite a bit of weapons missing. Like 371 weapons recovered
no eye patch? wait...thats it? actually nice shiney there. I just picked up my M1 from my father this morning and yes...WWII. Wife looking at a glock .45
Both the Wife and Genghis Connie have taken a shine to my tweaked Beretta. I may use that as an excuse to get a S&W M&P (with tweaks of course) for IDPA fun.
Rented Tritium wrote:The ATF is SUPPOSED to basically be an FDA/CPSC variant that only covers things that are inherently dangerous.
The ATF has never been associated with the FDA or the CPSC. They've never even been in the same cabinet department.
Rented Tritium wrote:
Trouble is, the ATF went from regulatory agency to full-on law enforcement somewhere in the middle and wow is that ever a horrible mix.
The ATF has always been either a law enforcement agency in its own right, or a law enforcement division of another agency.
Rented Tritium wrote:The ATF is SUPPOSED to basically be an FDA/CPSC variant that only covers things that are inherently dangerous.
The ATF has never been associated with the FDA or the CPSC. They've never even been in the same cabinet department.
I never said they were associated, I said it was intended to fill a similar role. Key words in my post: "basically" and "variant"
Rented Tritium wrote:
Trouble is, the ATF went from regulatory agency to full-on law enforcement somewhere in the middle and wow is that ever a horrible mix.
The ATF has always been either a law enforcement agency in its own right, or a law enforcement division of another agency.
It has always legally been one, but was never intended to be a high powered raiding agency. They were intended to be more like game wardens than the FBI.
The ATF has had a fair bit of mission creep over the years.
Rented Tritium wrote:
I never said they were associated, I said it was intended to fill a similar role. Key words in my post: "basically" and "variant"
So, the ATF was "basically" "intended" to be a "variant" of a pair of organizations with which it was never associated, and shares no organizational history?
Rented Tritium wrote:
The ATF has had a fair bit of mission creep over the years.
Since when? As established under the DoT in 1972 the agency was primarily about the enforcement of, and investigation of violations to, federal gun and explosive regulations. This didn't change under Homeland Security.
You keep talking about what the ATF was intended to be, without defining who is doing the intending, when they did it, or even why, if the ATF was intended to be what you describe, it was granted powers well in excess what was necessary. Hell, you haven't even explained why the initial intention, whatever that may be, of those who founded the ATf is important at all.
The ATF traces its roots considerably earlier than 1972 however, and those roots are based on the "alcohol" part of it, as a tax enforcement branch. It ahas evolved (or devolved depending on view) but regardless its the entity it is today and the past is less relevant.
You know what´s REALLY fun and that the eurowhussie media tries so hard not to mention?
What european country has amongst if not the lowest crime rates of them all and what lone european country has liberal gun owning laws allowing citizens to arm themselves?
Might those be the very same country?
Then again we have holes like the Great Brittain where the police are so sensitive that they arent even allowed to carry guns normally...and what crime rate do we have over there?
Since it obviously isnt an immigration issue, oh no that is just sooo racist, and it´s obviously not the guns themselves, oh no we all know it´s the guns who kill people, then oh what could it be? The snowy alp tops maybe? Or maybe they sing a lot of indie songs over in alp-land?
Rented Tritium wrote:
I never said they were associated, I said it was intended to fill a similar role. Key words in my post: "basically" and "variant"
So, the ATF was "basically" "intended" to be a "variant" of a pair of organizations with which it was never associated, and shares no organizational history?
Rented Tritium wrote:
The ATF has had a fair bit of mission creep over the years.
Since when? As established under the DoT in 1972 the agency was primarily about the enforcement of, and investigation of violations to, federal gun and explosive regulations. This didn't change under Homeland Security.
You keep talking about what the ATF was intended to be, without defining who is doing the intending, when they did it, or even why, if the ATF was intended to be what you describe, it was granted powers well in excess what was necessary. Hell, you haven't even explained why the initial intention, whatever that may be, of those who founded the ATf is important at all.
Whatever, I can tell you're getting mad about this so I'm not going to argue it anymore. Consider my point dropped.
You know what´s REALLY fun and that the eurowhussie media tries so hard not to mention?
What european country has amongst if not the lowest crime rates of them all and what lone european country has liberal gun owning laws allowing citizens to arm themselves?
Might those be the very same country?
Then again we have holes like the Great Brittain where the police are so sensitive that they arent even allowed to carry guns normally...and what crime rate do we have over there?
Since it obviously isnt an immigration issue, oh no that is just sooo racist, and it´s obviously not the guns themselves, oh no we all know it´s the guns who kill people, then oh what could it be? The snowy alp tops maybe? Or maybe they sing a lot of indie songs over in alp-land?
If liberal gun laws leads to less crime, why is crime more common in the US than in pretty much any western world? I also partially disagree with your implied statement that violence is somehow the fault of "immigrants": it's the fault of the European governments for not integrating immigrants in general into society, making a small minority of said immigrants turn to crime.
You know what´s REALLY fun and that the eurowhussie media tries so hard not to mention?
What european country has amongst if not the lowest crime rates of them all and what lone european country has liberal gun owning laws allowing citizens to arm themselves?
Might those be the very same country?
Then again we have holes like the Great Brittain where the police are so sensitive that they arent even allowed to carry guns normally...and what crime rate do we have over there?
Since it obviously isnt an immigration issue, oh no that is just sooo racist, and it´s obviously not the guns themselves, oh no we all know it´s the guns who kill people, then oh what could it be? The snowy alp tops maybe? Or maybe they sing a lot of indie songs over in alp-land?
If liberal gun laws leads to less crime, why is crime more common in the US than in pretty much any western world? I also partially disagree with your implied statement that violence is somehow the fault of "immigrants": it's the fault of the European governments for not integrating immigrants in general into society, making a small minority of said immigrants turn to crime.
Prove we have more crime - you have to yuse similar stats however.
If proven then you have to link us not to Europe, but to Latin America. We literally have an open border to a killing ground and a free flow of illegal immigrants. While I think these immigrants are great and want them legalized, there is also a criminal element, and that criminal element is brutal, organized, and frequnetly deported only to come back.
Looks like I was wrong. For comparison, Sweden had a crime rate of 120 crimes per 1000 inhabitants in 2009 while the US had 34.6 crimes per 1000 inhabitants.
I'd like some help from you guys though, the FBI statistics seem a bit incomplete. Am I missing something or is stuff like fraud not included in the statistics? That seems a bit... well, fraudulent. What I also would like clarified by someone who speaks English as his or her native tongue is whether or not these statistics include all instances of alleged crime reported to every police district or only the ones which police have acted on and then passed on. The distinction is important because the Swedish equivalent reports alleged crimes, without distinguishing between actual or fabricated crimes.
Despite me being wrong on the immediate issue, however, this data still shows us one of two things: either immigrants aren't the source of crime or the US population doesn't trust the police... Which is where I run into a wall. I think we can all agree that there are a lot of Americans who don't trust the police, yes? My argument thus goes as follows:
If immigration leads to an increase in crime per capita, the US should have a much higher rate of crime than it currently does. While this could be seen as evidence of more liberal gun laws being beneficial, I believe that that is not the case, but rather that anti-government sentiment currently present in a lot of Americans (Tea Party etc.) as well as the multiple examples of American distrust of authority through history is evidence of a huge portion of crime going unreported. As such, the crime rate appears lower than it actually is. While this is true in any country, I believe it to be more of an issue in the US than in Sweden due to greate anti-police sentiments being present.
@Almighty Walrus
Here's a comparison whic I Believe is based on a survey collected by the UN.
http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/Sweden/United-States/Crime In answer to your question about us trusting the police it indicates that we trust our police more than the Swedes.
I'm eating breakfast so likely I'll either edit or have a new post shortly, but I do seem to remember that the UK which has many of the gun restriction liberals in this country would like was crowned the most violent country in Europe.
Looks like I was wrong. For comparison, Sweden had a crime rate of 120 crimes per 1000 inhabitants in 2009 while the US had 34.6 crimes per 1000 inhabitants.
I'd like some help from you guys though, the FBI statistics seem a bit incomplete. Am I missing something or is stuff like fraud not included in the statistics? That seems a bit... well, fraudulent. What I also would like clarified by someone who speaks English as his or her native tongue is whether or not these statistics include all instances of alleged crime reported to every police district or only the ones which police have acted on and then passed on. The distinction is important because the Swedish equivalent reports alleged crimes, without distinguishing between actual or fabricated crimes.
Despite me being wrong on the immediate issue, however, this data still shows us one of two things: either immigrants aren't the source of crime or the US population doesn't trust the police... Which is where I run into a wall. I think we can all agree that there are a lot of Americans who don't trust the police, yes? My argument thus goes as follows:
If immigration leads to an increase in crime per capita, the US should have a much higher rate of crime than it currently does. While this could be seen as evidence of more liberal gun laws being beneficial, I believe that that is not the case, but rather that anti-government sentiment currently present in a lot of Americans (Tea Party etc.) as well as the multiple examples of American distrust of authority through history is evidence of a huge portion of crime going unreported. As such, the crime rate appears lower than it actually is. While this is true in any country, I believe it to be more of an issue in the US than in Sweden due to greate anti-police sentiments being present.
In the US they have a far better way of intergrating their immigrants then europe or god forbid, sweden.
In the US people are made to want to be part and to be proud of being americans, over here it is shameful to be swedish and our dear leaders have said things like sweden has no culture and when two persons apply to the same job the immigrant must be taken first etc. Those things all breed resentment.
Take the biggest prison in the city I live in for example, 58 inmates and of those only 7 are swedes.
The fact still stands, the euro country with the least immigrants and the most liberal gun laws has the lowest crime rates of them all. That cannot be excused away by some lame rhetorics since it proves that either one or both of these factors bring up crime rates immensely.
Take a look at Japan and crime rates, sure they dont exactly flood over with guns but they dont have an insane immigration policy either.
Also:
It got to my attention that some people were upset over me calling Great Brittain a "hole". For this I appologize, I never meant to insinuate it was a bad country, only boring. I wrote to fast not thinking through the correct translation from swedish to english on this matter as "hole" referring to a city in sweden mostly means "boring". You can ask the other swedish member in this thread about this too.
Yeah yeah I know "boring" is bad too but it is imo ok to think a place can be boring and still like it (heck I find my own place that I live in boring but still like it), I have spent over 2 months in the UK on various vacations because I like the country...but I still found it rather boring or else the vacations would have been longer.
Pyriel- wrote:
The fact still stands, the euro country with the least immigrants and the most liberal gun laws has the lowest crime rates of them all. That cannot be excused away by some lame rhetorics since it proves that either one or both of these factors bring up crime rates immensely.
No. Correlation does not equal causation. By that logic, I could say that Switzerland has the lowest crime rate of them all because it has the most national languages.
It most likely doesn't have a lot of crime because it's the wealthiest country in the world in terms of wealth per adult; you don't see a lot of crime in Newport Beach, either.
Pyriel- wrote:
The fact still stands, the euro country with the least immigrants and the most liberal gun laws has the lowest crime rates of them all. That cannot be excused away by some lame rhetorics since it proves that either one or both of these factors bring up crime rates immensely.
No. Correlation does not equal causation. By that logic, I could say that Switzerland has the lowest crime rate of them all because it has the most national languages.
It most likely doesn't have a lot of crime because it's the wealthiest country in the world in terms of wealth per adult; you don't see a lot of crime in Newport Beach, either.
Agreed.
Upon further notice it would seem that there's a lot more things missing from the FBI summary that's represented on the BRÅ one; fraud, DUI, embezzlement and narcotics-related crime is not represented at all. I'm retracting my admittance of being wrong and instead apologising for providing uncomparable sources.
Also, Switzerland is rich and is mountainous. Norway is rich and mountainous. I therefore predict that Nepal will become rich any moment now!
of ordinary law abiding citizens doesn't strike my level of justifable reason.
