How so?

Let me break it down for you. "If the Clinton Regime could get away with gassing, shooting, and incinerating 84 people on American soil, I think Obama is safe."

The Clinton Regime - By using the word Regime, you are making implications. From Wikipedia - "Nowadays the political use the word regime is most commonly applied to any government that is most of the time not democratically elected and imposes strict and often arbitrary rules and laws on the people that are, because of the undemocratic nature of the government, non-negotiable" Obviously not the case. No more explanation needed.

"get away with gassing, shooting, and incinerating 84 people on American soil" - Obviously, you are referring to the Branch Dividians and the incident at Waaco, TX. By the way you are stating this, you are implying that these people were just brutally murdered by the US government and, by extension, at the orders from the President. Nothing could be further from the truth. This was a cult led by a dangerous man who had barricaded themselves into their compound and killed 4 Federal Agents after they attempted to raid the compound. After a 51 day standoff, the Feds attempted to remove the cultists. No one to this day knows what caused the fire, but 84 people did die. They were not executed. They were not killed in cold blood. They made a stand against the rightful warrants of the US Government and a tragedy ensued.

THIS is why I said that you are rewriting history. I actually know a survivor of the raid because she wasn't there with her kid when the shit went down. Went to school with her. Her husband was the first one shot by the Feds outside of the compound. I have no problem with you being anti-Democrat, but being anti-history is just plain wrong.

Please demand your justice on the appropriate thread. It helps keep the forum clean and threads on track.

"you are implying that these people were just brutally murdered by the US government" - Yup.

"This was a cult led by a dangerous man" - What exactly was the nature of this "danger"? If it was illegal guns, why did the ATF turn down repeated offers to conduct a spot inspections of the Davidians' inventory? Why did the ATF let Paul Fatta go off to a gun show on the morning of February 28th with the bulk of the Davidians' alleged "illegal stockpile"?

"After a 51 day standoff, the Feds attempted to remove the cultists." - No, they did not attempt to "remove" anyone. They destroyed the doorways and stairways of the "compound" with their armored vehicles and then pumped CS gas into the building. Have you seen the autopsy reports, jimgov? A lot of people showed no sign of smoke in their lungs, indicating that they were actually killed by the CS gas before the fire started.

"No one to this day knows what caused the fire" - Sounds like a direct quote from Wikipedia. Sorry, but when the FBI fires pyrotechnic tear gas rounds (the "burners" used by the San Bernardino County Sheriff's department to ignite the cabin Chris Dorner was pinned down in a few months ago) at a building that then catches fire, only someone who is either 1) painfully ignorant, or 2) a complete idiot would ever suggest that something else may have caused the fire.

"They made a stand against the rightful warrants of the US Government"

This is a ridiculous statement, since the warrants were so rife with serious legal errors and untrue claims (i.e., "perjury") they never would've held up in any kind of court. A good run-down of the flaws with the highly flawed warrant is here:
http://www.davekopel.com/waco/lawrev/warrant.htm

"They were not executed. They were not killed in cold blood."

The survivors of the April 19th inferno are unanimous in their belief that it was, in fact, cold-blooded pre-meditated mass murder. But I guess they're all just "rewriting history".

"THIS is why I said that you are rewriting history. I actually know a survivor of the raid because she wasn't there with her kid when the shit went down. Went to school with her. Her husband was the first one shot by the Feds outside of the compound."

Sounds like you're referring to Kathy Schroeder (widow of Mike Schroeder), who became a 'witness' for the government after they threatened her with decades in prison and to take her child away. None of Kathy's post-massacre claims have ever been corroborated by any of the survivors (two of whom I have met personally) - either of the April 19th inferno or those who left Mt. Carmel between then and the ATF raid. This is what Kathy was saying days after her husband's murder by the ATF:

"Kathy: One more thing I would like to tell the public, if they can and find this out, I am really tired of the lies. I'm really tired of hearing the stories the Federal agents have told the public, seeing as how we have no press coverage directly from this facility, from our church, we have no one telling the world our side. And I am watching and listening on the radio, watching on the news reports, the press conferences, watching the lies that the Federal agents have told ... it's astounding, day after day how far they go. And that's just one agency. All of the other agencies back there are going to back them up, that's including the Federal government. We, the People, don't run this country. They do, and they tell all the lies they want"
http://independence.net/waco/www.parascope.com/articles/1296/test_04.htm

So have you "known" Kathy Schroeder since high school, jimgov, or are you relying on some long-ago coincidental school attendance to give your regurgitation of wikipedia some extra credibility?

"I have no problem with you being anti-Democrat"

I imagine the vast majority of ATF and FBI stormtroopers who killed those people were (like most law enforcers) solidly Republican. Also, the initial ATF raid was first planned and approved during the Bush regime, as was the approval for the use of National Guard helicopters. Why, I wonder, does pointing out government crimes which are committed by both democrats and republicans make me "anti-Democrat"?

Wow. You do have some real insight into this. Tell me, do you have access to the autopsy report? Because unless you do, then you have the same information as I do. As for Kathy, I went to high school with her AND taught her son in high school several years ago. So no, I am not one of the crazies that will make crap up to back up some sort of sick claim. Actually, I had no idea that there was anything about her on the internet concerning this until you linked to it. But thanks for making that accusation. And by using the term "stormtrooper," you are showing that you are so out of whack on this that there is no reasoning with you. And the link that you provided to "prove" that the warrants are bad are from a conservative think tank in Colorado which is linked to the Heartland foundation. Neither would qualify as being fair and balanced.

@ Philcore - you wrote:
"@flemjem: "and now a string of Obama's fumbles...."
Wow. Mutherfuckinjust wow."

If you'd been following the thread, I was borrowing Obiwan's phrase in an attempt to not be unnecessarily inflammatory...which is apparently not a concern of yours.

@obi, please see my earlier thread directed to flemjem, I'm officially redirecting it to you.

@flemjem: I can't be expected to read every one of obi's long add posts. I'll usually read the first one in a given thread, but oh my god, does he ramble. I did actually follow the rest of the thread though. As far as using a word to not be inflammatory though, that was exactly what I took exception to. To say that the shit that has gone on are just fumbles, is to excuse the behavior. I went back and reread you comment, after finding Obi's original, and I'm still not sure if you were using his word to continue the non inflammatory language or to mock it. If you were trying to mock it, the maybe quotes would have made that more clear. If you were trying to minimize it as obi did, then my response was still directed at you too.

And you're right, being non inflammatory is definitely not a concern of mine. It's very much preferred to the dishonest attempt to minimize what are very real concerns.

Why not call it bush's "enhanced interrogation" policy, rather than his "torture" policy, if your worried about inflammatory language?

I'm just going to respond to the OP, Most of what you are claiming are Obama-Administration scandals are being blown-way out of proportion. Nothing has yet been proven or even moderately supported about Benghazi despite 8 months of investigation, which leads me to believe that there isn't really anything there to find.

The IRS scandal is still under investigation and there has yet to be any evidence that Obama encouraged or even knew about it. Same with DOJ.

Fast and Furious is the only legitimate complaint, and I can't really recall, but I think Obama had very minimal ties to that, already apologized, and has largely been forgotten by the public.

Currently I agree, I think Obama is going to have a near impossible time passing any sort of legislation. However that kind prediction is really only good for a few weeks to a few months at best. Political Situations change, like the background check bill, which was killed by Conservative legislators despite support from 90% of Americans. If you think that kind of action isn't going to cause a political blowback for those voting the bill downward, you are being either willfully ignorant, or far too optimistic about the support for an unfettered 2nd Amendment in the face of overwhelming public opinion.

The background checks weren't the reason it was shot down. There was plenty else wrong.with that bill and Oblamer thought he could r.stuff down congresses throat.

More flaming hatred! Come on, people!! Don't make me start uber-trolling again!

Krellin the voice for civil discourse? Refreshing!

@Philcare -
a.) I didn't want to inflame Obi. His posts are long enough already.
b.) If I want to mock Obi, I incorporate Shakespeare.
c.) I also used the term "fumble" in part because many of the allegations are fresh and connections to the president have not been established. I wanted to leave some room for calm discussion before all the facts are in.
d.) I try to avoid inflammatory and especially coarse language because "vulgar language is evidence of a weak mind trying to express itself forcefully". Or in more inflammatory terms, if you have to say "fuck" then you're only about half as smart as you think you are. Get a thesaurus and dictionary if you can't think of a more creative or precise word. Or since you're on the internet, Google a thesaurus. There are many fine resources available on the internet for those at a loss for words.

You also wrote: "And you're right, being non inflammatory is definitely not a concern of mine. It's very much preferred to the dishonest attempt to minimize what are very real concerns."

I reject your false choice between being uncivil and dishonest. Like coarse language, incivility demonstrates a lack of self control and emotional maturity.

A mature person interested in civil discourse and mutually edifying social exchange could have simply said something like, "FlemGem, are you minimizing the seriousness of this case? Because I think it's very serious, and you seem to be minimizing." And I could have pointed out that I am very much on record on this site as being very concerned about the growing concentration of power in the federal government, and in the executive branch in particular, and you would have found out that we have a great deal in common, instead of jumping to the ludicrous conclusion that I disagree with you, as you did.

haha, well put FlemGem, I thought I was reading one of my own posts to draugnar for a minute ;-)

I do have a tendency lately to assume things based on a single post, rather than trying to keep in mind previous posts of people. I did the same to Gen Lee the other day. But know this - I can at least recognize that I'm turning into a jumping-the-gun bastard, and self-reflection is the best way to fix yourself (provided what you see is undesirable). I wish everyone had this capability. :-)

Thanks for keeping me humble (and doing it politely, I might add +1)

Nice try puddle. There was so much more than just background checks in that bill and that is why it was shot down

write a bill only on the background checks and it would pass

"Tell me, do you have access to the autopsy report? Because unless you do, then you have the same information as I do."

The autopsy reports are here (among other places):
http://www.public-action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum/death/map/d_list00.html

"Actually, I had no idea that there was anything about her on the internet concerning this until you linked to it."

It's not exactly top secret - there's tons. A google search for "Katy Schroeder Waco" turned up 102,000 hits. How hard did you look?

"But thanks for making that accusation."

Your apparent ignorance on the subject had (and still has) me wondering. And I highly doubt from your version of the facts that you've talked to her in detail about any of this (especially after reading some of the news stories about her I found in the google search). Even after turning state's evidence, she said on the stand during the BDs' trial that "our conspiracy was only to defend ourselves when attacked".

"And the link that you provided to "prove" that the warrants are bad are from a conservative think tank in Colorado which is linked to the Heartland foundation. Neither would qualify as being fair and balanced."

The author has written dozens of articles for highly prestigious scholarly legal journals published by Ivy League schools and editorials published by "right-wing newspapers" like the New York Times. Have you? Evading these facts by crying "but he's a conseeeeeeervative!!!!" is lazy, cheap, and dishonest (especially since, if you tracked back to the Heartland Foundation, you also saw the list of reputable law journal articles). If you don't agree, the thing to do would be to point out where the analysis is wrong, or at least, introduce a competing analysis. Instead you resort to ad hominem and claim that this whole thing is all just political.

Well, sadly, between this thread and the other one I started, the takeaway I'm getting is that it's not a big deal if the government kills people so long as the people complaining about it can be pigeon-holed as "right-wing" somehow.

No hard feelings, Philcore, I can get along with a guy who has the capacity for self-reflection. +1 right back atcha.

For anyone genuinely interested in learning what happened at Waco (and why some 'crazies' like me are still so ticked off about it twenty years after the fact), I'd highly recommend this academy award nominated documentary on the subject:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebolPiRyhTo