|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero



Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 20 days
|
The new "transparent" whitehouse
#10517419 - 06/16/09 02:35 PM (14 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Gotta hand it to Obama for keeping the government transparent...
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/237/make-white-house-communications-public/
Quote:
"Will amend executive orders to ensure that communications about regulatory policymaking between persons outside government and all White House staff are disclosed to the public."
... and ...
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/239/release-presidential-records/
Quote:
"Will nullify the Bush attempts to make the timely release of presidential records more difficult."
I just want to take a moment to thank all of the Otards that voted for this tool... same shit, different president. So much for change...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_white_house_secrecy
Quote:
WASHINGTON – The Obama administration is declining to release documents that would identify visitors to the White House, embracing a legal position taken by the Bush administration, according to a watchdog group that filed a federal lawsuit over access to the records.
The group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, filed its lawsuit after being denied access to Secret Service records, including White House entry and exit logs, that would identify coal and energy industry visitors.
The government's refusal to release the records contrasts with President Barack Obama's pledge of transparency.
The Secret Service also turned aside a request by msnbc.com for the names of all White House visitors since Jan. 20.
In a letter, the Homeland Security Department told CREW that most of the records the group seeks are not agency records subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. Instead, DHS said the records are governed by the Presidential Records Act and not subject to disclosure under the FOIA.
DHS said it had been advised by the Justice Department — it generally defends U.S. government agencies in FOIA cases — that releasing the requested records could reveal information protected by the presidential communications privilege.
The Bush administration fought on the same legal ground for several years in a case that is now before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said that, because of CREW's lawsuit, the counsel's office is leading a review into whether to uphold the previous administration's policy of not releasing the logs. He did not have a timeframe for when that review would be done.
Gibbs said the goal is "to uphold the principle of open government" and increased transparency that Obama campaigned on. But he also said that the issue of upholding precedent from previous presidents is a consideration.
At the same time, Gibbs defended the president's right to hold meetings at the White House with undisclosed participants.
"I think there are obviously occasions in which the president is going to meet privately with advisers on topics that are of great national importance, yes," he said.
A week and a half before Obama took office, U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth brushed aside the Bush administration's argument that revealing Secret Service logs would impede the president's ability to perform his constitutional duties. The court said that the likelihood of harm is not great enough to justify curtailing the public disclosure goals of the FOIA.
The long-running controversy over shielding the identities of visitors to the White House and to the personal residence of the vice president is wrapped up in the influencing peddling scandal involving now-imprisoned lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
In the spring of 2006 when various groups were trying to find out the dates of Abramoff's White House visits, the White House and the Secret Service quietly signed an agreement declaring the Secret Service logs identifying visitors to the White House are not open to the public.
Four months later, Vice President Dick Cheney's office told the Secret Service in a letter that visitor records for the vice president's personal residence "are and shall remain subject to the exclusive ownership, custody and control" of the Office of the Vice President. The controversy over Cheney involved visits by a number of conservative religious leaders to the vice president's residence.
CREW's lawsuit is before U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan, a Clinton-era appointee.
So what is the asshat hiding? Why does he not want us to know who he has been speaking with? I'd love to hear from the Otards that believe Obama can do no wrong...
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
lonestar2004
Live to party,work to affordit.



Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 8,978
Loc: South Texas
Last seen: 12 years, 9 months
|
Re: The new "transparent" whitehouse [Re: Seuss]
#10517997 - 06/16/09 03:51 PM (14 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Seuss said:
So what is the asshat hiding? Why does he not want us to know who he has been speaking with? I'd love to hear from the Otards that believe Obama can do no wrong...
"The governors' dinner was "a great kickoff of what we hope will be an atmosphere here in the White House that is welcoming and that reminds everybody that this is the people's house," Obama told the state chief executives.
"We are just temporary occupants. This is a place that belongs to the American people and we want to make sure that everybody understands it's open," he said."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/03/02/national/w005824S86.DTL&type=politics
So much for transparency.
-------------------- America's debt problem is a "sign of leadership failure" We have "reckless fiscal policies" America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better Barack Obama
|
djmako7
Antitransubstantiationalist



Registered: 06/13/06
Posts: 2,362
Loc: A shady spot under a tree
|
Re: The new "transparent" whitehouse [Re: lonestar2004]
#10519250 - 06/16/09 07:40 PM (14 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
You must be a native to become president right? So why did he refuse to show his birth certificate?
65.5 million of you are are fucking morons
|
Redstorm
Prince of Bugs




Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 3 months, 10 days
|
Re: The new "transparent" whitehouse [Re: djmako7]
#10519275 - 06/16/09 07:43 PM (14 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
65.5 million of you are are fucking morons
Why leave out the (approximately) other 47% of voters?
|
lonestar2004
Live to party,work to affordit.



Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 8,978
Loc: South Texas
Last seen: 12 years, 9 months
|
Re: The new "transparent" whitehouse [Re: Redstorm]
#10519397 - 06/16/09 08:00 PM (14 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Redstorm said:
Quote:
65.5 million of you are are fucking morons
Why leave out the (approximately) other 47% of voters?
Well Red since you are claiming that 98% of the American voters are morons who did you vote for again?
Not the War on Drugs loving, Pro-life, Former Federal Prosecutor piece of shit Bob Barr?
or did even bother to fucking vote.....
-------------------- America's debt problem is a "sign of leadership failure" We have "reckless fiscal policies" America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better Barack Obama
|
djmako7
Antitransubstantiationalist



Registered: 06/13/06
Posts: 2,362
Loc: A shady spot under a tree
|
Re: The new "transparent" whitehouse [Re: Redstorm]
#10519438 - 06/16/09 08:09 PM (14 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Redstorm said:
Quote:
65.5 million of you are are fucking morons
Why leave out the (approximately) other 47% of voters?
They lost and losers don't deserve credit to anything.
Ha ha ha im just talking out my ass now
|
THC Titan
Spoonman



Registered: 03/03/09
Posts: 590
Loc: FL, USA
Last seen: 13 years, 5 months
|
Re: The new "transparent" whitehouse [Re: djmako7]
#10519470 - 06/16/09 08:15 PM (14 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Obama is a cunt for this.
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero



Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 20 days
|
Re: The new "transparent" whitehouse [Re: THC Titan]
#10519498 - 06/16/09 08:21 PM (14 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
> You must be a native to become president right? So why did he refuse to show his birth certificate?
Please stay on topic.
> Obama is a cunt for this.
For this? I think this simply illustrates the kind of double speak that he exemplifies. He tells people one thing and does another, yet people continue to love him as if he is somehow different than any other career politician.
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
lonestar2004
Live to party,work to affordit.



Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 8,978
Loc: South Texas
Last seen: 12 years, 9 months
|
Re: The new "transparent" whitehouse [Re: THC Titan]
#10519592 - 06/16/09 08:38 PM (14 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
THC Titan said: Obama is a cunt for this.
Republicans use to believe that we should abolish the Department of Education. I know you do not agree with that but that use to be the republican platform.
i donated lots of time and cash to help get Bush elected in 2000 and the first fucking thing he did in office was create a huge expensive bill with Ted fucking Kennedy that GREATLY EXPANDED the federal role in education!
i can relate.....
-------------------- America's debt problem is a "sign of leadership failure" We have "reckless fiscal policies" America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better Barack Obama
|
johnm214



Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: The new "transparent" whitehouse [Re: lonestar2004]
#10520547 - 06/16/09 11:52 PM (14 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
lonestar2004 said:
Quote:
Redstorm said:
Quote:
65.5 million of you are are fucking morons
Why leave out the (approximately) other 47% of voters?
Well Red since you are claiming that 98% of the American voters are morons who did you vote for again?
Not the War on Drugs loving, Pro-life, Former Federal Prosecutor piece of shit Bob Barr?
or did even bother to fucking vote.....
More nonsense about Barr?
Please show that he is "war on drugs loving". I followed his candidacy and nomination and I didn't see any evidence of this. Your attacks are silly. I fail to see how being pro life is at all relevant, and roe v wade was quite obviously nonsense.
I can only guess you urge some ridiculous ideological purity that excludes barr because of his past actions. Given his comments and explanations I had no doubts who I was voting for and it sure wasn't a war on drugs politician.
I also find it grand that your calling barr a "piece of shit" when you cry and call people hate mongorers if they so much as suggest Palin is inconsistant- ironcially the same damn thing you are accusing Barr of only in much stronger tones than the people you've maligned for the same.
------
I don't understand obama's positions. He routinely referred to bush's illegal actions and promised transparity and now he continues violating the law and keeping shit secret. How ridiculous.
The obstructionist tactics are both in violation of the law and directly opposing transparency- the same thing he complained of. (and the personal residence bit is silly. They asked for white house entrance records, not records of who entered his private residence. If he doesn't want them disclosed he should either stop keeping them or move out. At minimum he can disclose those who weren't private guests- I fail to see how lobbyists are anything but official visitors unless he's spending the night with them...)
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero



Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 20 days
|
Re: The new "transparent" whitehouse [Re: johnm214]
#10521829 - 06/17/09 04:43 AM (14 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
I don't understand obama's positions. He routinely referred to bush's illegal actions and promised transparity and now he continues violating the law and keeping shit secret. How ridiculous.
I firmly believe that he is an empty suit more worried about his popularity than anything else. He is also flip flopping on gay rights, trying to appease both the homosexuals and the homophobes. He doesn't seem to realize that a president cannot satisfy all people all the time. In the end, he accomplishes nothing and makes almost everybody angry.
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
lonestar2004
Live to party,work to affordit.



Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 8,978
Loc: South Texas
Last seen: 12 years, 9 months
|
Re: The new "transparent" whitehouse [Re: johnm214]
#10522560 - 06/17/09 08:28 AM (14 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
johnm214 said:
Quote:
lonestar2004 said:
Quote:
Redstorm said:
Quote:
65.5 million of you are are fucking morons
Why leave out the (approximately) other 47% of voters?
Well Red since you are claiming that 98% of the American voters are morons who did you vote for again?
Not the War on Drugs loving, Pro-life, Former Federal Prosecutor piece of shit Bob Barr?
or did even bother to fucking vote.....
More nonsense about Barr?
Please show that he is "war on drugs loving". I followed his candidacy and nomination and I didn't see any evidence of this. Your attacks are silly.
I'm not sure what the whore is claiming to be lately but he used to be a CIA agent and a US Federal Attorney. that's a fact John.
Bob Barr successfully PROSECUTED members of the Medellin Colombian Drug Cartel for the United States Government War on on Drugs.
that's not "silly".....
-------------------- America's debt problem is a "sign of leadership failure" We have "reckless fiscal policies" America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better Barack Obama
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero



Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 20 days
|
Re: The new "transparent" whitehouse [Re: lonestar2004]
#10522846 - 06/17/09 10:09 AM (14 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
I'm not sure what the whore is claiming to be lately but he used to be a CIA agent and a US Federal Attorney. that's a fact John.
Bob Barr successfully PROSECUTED members of the Medellin Colombian Drug Cartel for the United States Government War on on Drugs.
that's not "silly".....
It is 'silly' if he has changed his mindset. I don't fault Obama for doing drugs when he was younger, but I do fault him for persecuting drug users now that he is in a position of authority. I fault Bob Barr for persecuting drug users when he was in a position of authority, but I don't fault him for embracing anti-prohibitionist policies now. The real question: has he honestly changed his mind about prohibition? I've seen nothing to indicate that he is still a prohibitionist, so I will give him the benefit of the doubt until he shows otherwise. People can and do change...
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
inkblot
Stranger
Registered: 01/11/09
Posts: 220
Last seen: 13 years, 5 months
|
Re: The new "transparent" whitehouse [Re: Seuss]
#10522928 - 06/17/09 10:30 AM (14 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Hold it. The site says he's done nothing for or against that first promise and kept the second one. Why are you acting as if he broke his promise on both? How is nullifying that order Bush made a bad thing?
Still, I can't forgive Obama's refusal to release those documents.
Edited by inkblot (06/17/09 10:32 AM)
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero



Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 20 days
|
Re: The new "transparent" whitehouse [Re: inkblot]
#10523229 - 06/17/09 11:56 AM (14 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
> The site says he's done nothing for or against that first promise and kept the second one
Oh, I thought everybody understood that "that site" has lost any hope of being bipartisan. It has become blatantly prObama.
> Why are you acting as if he broke his promise on both? How is nullifying that order Bush made a bad thing?
You answered your first question with your second question. He has not nullified "that order Bush made" and instead is using "that order Bush made" to keep his own visitor records sealed from the public. So much for open and transparent.
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
inkblot
Stranger
Registered: 01/11/09
Posts: 220
Last seen: 13 years, 5 months
|
Re: The new "transparent" whitehouse [Re: Seuss]
#10525237 - 06/17/09 05:44 PM (14 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Seuss said: > The site says he's done nothing for or against that first promise and kept the second one
Oh, I thought everybody understood that "that site" has lost any hope of being bipartisan. It has become blatantly prObama.
> Why are you acting as if he broke his promise on both? How is nullifying that order Bush made a bad thing?
You answered your first question with your second question. He has not nullified "that order Bush made" and instead is using "that order Bush made" to keep his own visitor records sealed from the public. So much for open and transparent.
First of all, if Politifact can't be trusted, then why are you using it to prove your point?
Second of all, did you actually read what Bush's restrictions were? They allowed a former President to block any presidental record by "reviewing" it indefinitely. That has absolutely nothing to do with Obama's refusal to disclose who visited the White House.
I'm not defending Obama. But you took the phrase "Obama signs executive order on presidential records" completely out of context.
Edited by inkblot (06/17/09 05:47 PM)
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero



Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 20 days
|
Re: The new "transparent" whitehouse [Re: inkblot]
#10525819 - 06/17/09 06:59 PM (14 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
> First of all, if Politifact can't be trusted, then why are you using it to prove your point?
Well golly, I don't know... maybe because they have a list of many of Obama's campaign promises. Just because they can't be trusted to list them all, and just because they can't be trusted to mark the lies, doesn't mean that they cannot be referenced.
> That has absolutely nothing to do with Obama's refusal to disclose who visited the White House.
On what grounds is Obama able to refuse disclosure of who visited the whitehouse. Regardless, my point is that Obama has made pledges to be transparent, and he is now doing what he can to remain secretive. This is why I posted the two links to politifact... to show that he made promises to be transparent in a number of different ways. I don't care what methodology he using, the fact is that he is breaking his promise to be transparent. End of story. Yet another Obama example of "change".
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
johnm214



Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: The new "transparent" whitehouse [Re: lonestar2004]
#10526189 - 06/17/09 07:54 PM (14 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Second of all, did you actually read what Bush's restrictions were? They allowed a former President to block any presidental record by "reviewing" it indefinitely. That has absolutely nothing to do with Obama's refusal to disclose who visited the White House.
Huh? What's the difference? And what are the "restrictions" you speak of? Please expound upon these restrictions or whatever and explain teh relevance.
How are the two not the same thing? Both did not comply with FOIA and disclose the records- what is the difference? That Obama both promised to return to the rule of law and to increase transparency and now he's obstructing the law to keep shit secret is ridiculous.
Same old shit. Detainee photos and visitor lists. I have no idea how you are distinguishing Bush's failure to provide the records and obama's, but your vague refrence to a "restriction" of bush coupled with a naked claim that that Obama and Bush's behavior are dissimilar is not convincing. How about you demonstrate they are dissimilar and explain the relevance? I can't figure it out from looking at your post, that's for sure.
Quote:
lonestar2004 said:
I'm not sure what the whore is claiming to be lately but he used to be a CIA agent and a US Federal Attorney. that's a fact John.
Bob Barr successfully PROSECUTED members of the Medellin Colombian Drug Cartel for the United States Government War on on Drugs.
that's not "silly".....
No, I said you were silly because you cry about people criticizing Palin on the merits of her actions and accuse them of being hate mongorers cuz they disagree with her or find her disingenuous, and then you call barr a "piece of shit", which is far more hateful and strong than the people you attack for not embracing everything palin does. Your double standards are ridiculous.
Your also silly because you've not shown what his actions in teh past have to do with the merits of voting for him today. As Seuss explained, he has explained his beliefs and how they've changed and appologized. More than I can say for many politicians- like Palin's flopping around on expensive federal projects for states or localities, her bridge nonsense. At least barr explained the change, acknowledged he was wrong and would act differently in the future, and appologized. Most politicians just ignore their record and continue on as if nothing happened and presume your too stupid to notice.
Are you suggesting that I should vote for people who don't change their mind? Who was the better candidate on this issue? Seriously, who was it? I want to hear who you think I should have voted for solely on the issues you've identified.
Your going to have to break this down for me.
*insert generic lonestar claim that people hate your favorite politician, diverting the thread from the merits to personal issues that you claim you don't want to discuss and yet invoke at every oportunity cuz your favorite politician is so victimized and deserves sympathy:
its crazy how normally smart/intelligent people i know become hateful and full of RHETORIC when talking about Bob Barr.
Ive seen them do the same thing to guys like you and Phred over the years here in PAL.
---
I guess Hate, FEAR, and Rhetoric just go together....
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!


Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
Re: The new "transparent" whitehouse [Re: inkblot]
#10526367 - 06/17/09 08:17 PM (14 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
inkblot said: if Politifact can't be trusted...
it's as trustworthy as Annenberg FactCheck
|
lonestar2004
Live to party,work to affordit.



Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 8,978
Loc: South Texas
Last seen: 12 years, 9 months
|
Re: The new "transparent" whitehouse [Re: johnm214]
#10526798 - 06/17/09 09:08 PM (14 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
johnm214 said:
diverting the thread from the merits to personal issues that you claim you don't want to discuss and yet invoke at every oportunity cuz your favorite politician is so victimized and deserves sympathy:
its crazy how normally smart/intelligent people i know become hateful and full of RHETORIC when talking about Bob Barr.
Ive seen them do the same thing to guys like you and Phred over the years here in PAL.
---
I guess Hate, FEAR, and Rhetoric just go together....
if you can calm down and read the thread i was staying on topic but then got "diverted" with Redstorm calling 98% of the voters MORONS.......
-------------------- America's debt problem is a "sign of leadership failure" We have "reckless fiscal policies" America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better Barack Obama
Edited by lonestar2004 (06/17/09 09:31 PM)
|
|