login
Ah yes, the "transparent" administration
-
No new posts
|
 2012-06-20 1:31 PM |
Champion  7347     SRQ, FL |  Subject: Ah yes, the "transparent" administrationhttp://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/21/us/obama-claims-executive-privilege-in-gun-case.html?_r=1 I'm still trying to understand how Obama can assert executive privilege over something he had "no knowledge of". Mark my words, they both knew about this and are scrambling to cover their butts. Edited by TriRSquared 2012-06-20 1:32 PM |
| 2012-06-20 1:53 PM in reply to: #4271915 |
Member 5452 NC | Subject: RE: Ah yes, the "transparent" administration "You know," he said, "There's been a tendency on the part of this administration to try to hide behind executive privilege every time there's something a little shaky that's taking place … I think the American people deserve to know what was going on there." - then Senator Obama, 2007. I love politicians.
|
| 2012-06-20 3:53 PM in reply to: #4271915 |
Elite 4564 Boise | Subject: RE: Ah yes, the "transparent" administration I look forward to reading the same thing from whoever is president after Obama. You don't think the next president is going to give up this "power" do you? |
| 2012-06-20 4:03 PM in reply to: #4272241 |
Champion 7347 SRQ, FL | Subject: RE: Ah yes, the "transparent" administration JoshR - 2012-06-20 4:53 PM I look forward to reading the same thing from whoever is president after Obama. You don't think the next president is going to give up this "power" do you? No. But it's pretty bad when you make "being transparent" a huge part of your platform and then end up being one of the most "opaque" administrations on record. |
| 2012-06-20 4:06 PM in reply to: #4272263 |
Elite 4564 Boise | Subject: RE: Ah yes, the "transparent" administration TriRSquared - 2012-06-20 3:03 PM JoshR - 2012-06-20 4:53 PM I look forward to reading the same thing from whoever is president after Obama. You don't think the next president is going to give up this "power" do you? No. But it's pretty bad when you make "being transparent" a huge part of your platform and then end up being one of the most "opaque" administrations on record.
Really? How about Compassionate conservatism? No new taxes? I'm sure it wouldn't take much effort at all to do this to just about every candidate in Washington. It's politics they are all lying out their shiny rear ends. As one of my favorite politicians(Jesse Ventura) said today, they are basically gangs. |
| 2012-06-20 4:10 PM in reply to: #4272268 |
Veteran 219 College Station, Texas | Subject: RE: Ah yes, the "transparent" administration JoshR - 2012-06-20 4:06 PM I agree, I think at somepoint everyone will finally have enough of them(politicians) and do something about it, I laugh at how as long as its "your" party doing it then its OK and you support it, when its the other guy, its the worse thing in the world!!TriRSquared - 2012-06-20 3:03 PM JoshR - 2012-06-20 4:53 PM I look forward to reading the same thing from whoever is president after Obama. You don't think the next president is going to give up this "power" do you? No. But it's pretty bad when you make "being transparent" a huge part of your platform and then end up being one of the most "opaque" administrations on record.
Really? How about Compassionate conservatism? No new taxes? I'm sure it wouldn't take much effort at all to do this to just about every candidate in Washington. It's politics they are all lying out their shiny rear ends. As one of my favorite politicians(Jesse Ventura) said today, they are basically gangs. Edited by PhilipRay 2012-06-20 4:11 PM |
| 2012-06-20 4:42 PM in reply to: #4272268 |
Champion 7347 SRQ, FL | Subject: RE: Ah yes, the "transparent" administration JoshR - 2012-06-20 5:06 PM TriRSquared - 2012-06-20 3:03 PM JoshR - 2012-06-20 4:53 PM I look forward to reading the same thing from whoever is president after Obama. You don't think the next president is going to give up this "power" do you? No. But it's pretty bad when you make "being transparent" a huge part of your platform and then end up being one of the most "opaque" administrations on record.
Really? How about Compassionate conservatism? No new taxes? I'm sure it wouldn't take much effort at all to do this to just about every candidate in Washington. It's politics they are all lying out their shiny rear ends. As one of my favorite politicians(Jesse Ventura) said today, they are basically gangs. I was always taught two wrongs don't make a right. Just because I criticize Obama does not mean I don't find fault with the GOP. |
| 2012-06-20 4:55 PM in reply to: #4272326 |
Elite 4564 Boise | Subject: RE: Ah yes, the "transparent" administration TriRSquared - 2012-06-20 3:42 PM JoshR - 2012-06-20 5:06 PM TriRSquared - 2012-06-20 3:03 PM JoshR - 2012-06-20 4:53 PM I look forward to reading the same thing from whoever is president after Obama. You don't think the next president is going to give up this "power" do you? No. But it's pretty bad when you make "being transparent" a huge part of your platform and then end up being one of the most "opaque" administrations on record.
Really? How about Compassionate conservatism? No new taxes? I'm sure it wouldn't take much effort at all to do this to just about every candidate in Washington. It's politics they are all lying out their shiny rear ends. As one of my favorite politicians(Jesse Ventura) said today, they are basically gangs. I was always taught two wrongs don't make a right. Just because I criticize Obama does not mean I don't find fault with the GOP.
I'm not trying to make a jab at you. More of a jab at everyone that continues to support the two party system. |
| 2012-06-20 4:56 PM in reply to: #4271915 |
Expert 1146 Johns Creek, Georgia | Subject: RE: Ah yes, the "transparent" administration Before and after say you? We are in the here and now. The mirror shows you typically who is to blame when you stare into it enough and you see clearly. |
| 2012-06-20 5:46 PM in reply to: #4272268 |
Elite 6387 | Subject: RE: Ah yes, the "transparent" administration JoshR - 2012-06-20 3:06 PM TriRSquared - 2012-06-20 3:03 PM JoshR - 2012-06-20 4:53 PM I look forward to reading the same thing from whoever is president after Obama. You don't think the next president is going to give up this "power" do you? No. But it's pretty bad when you make "being transparent" a huge part of your platform and then end up being one of the most "opaque" administrations on record.
Really? How about Compassionate conservatism? No new taxes? I'm sure it wouldn't take much effort at all to do this to just about every candidate in Washington. It's politics they are all lying out their shiny rear ends. As one of my favorite politicians(Jesse Ventura) said today, they are basically gangs. I agree... but the only heart burn over this is the fact that I had to listen to Senator Obama campaign FOR TWO STRAIGHT YEARS... how different hwe was and how he was going to change everything... you know that whole hopy changy thing. |
| 2012-06-20 9:36 PM in reply to: #4271915 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Ah yes, the "transparent" administration I am still trying to figure out who in their right mind could think that the whole fast and furious program was a good idea? /facepalm Just the fact that its the most ridiculous program ever lends credit to the conspiracy theory that it was all a ruse to put a lot of assault weapons in the hands of criminals so the administration would have some traction to put the assault weapons ban back in place. Not saying I agree with that, but seriously, why? |
| 2012-06-20 11:00 PM in reply to: #4271915 |
Master 2447 White Oak, Texas | Subject: RE: Ah yes, the "transparent" administration Are we forgetting that a Border Patrol Agent who was defending our nation was killed by a weapon our government allowed to be sold to a known criminal? GAF about what Bush or Rove did why can the President prevent the Congress from seeing documents about the program that allowed this to happen? Do we forget that the Justice department was created by Congress to carry out the laws passed by Congress. Do we forget that the Legislative Branch of the United States is tasked with making LAW. and the Executive branch is tasked with carrying it out. My friends if you are going to allow a President to decide what laws he wants to enforce and what laws he does not. And a department created by congress to choose what to and when to answer to said congress than you are asking for a Dictatorship. And I fear you will get one. |
| 2012-06-21 7:02 AM in reply to: #4272758 |
Elite 4564 Boise | Subject: RE: Ah yes, the "transparent" administration CBarnes - 2012-06-20 10:00 PM Are we forgetting that a Border Patrol Agent who was defending our nation was killed by a weapon our government allowed to be sold to a known criminal? GAF about what Bush or Rove did why can the President prevent the Congress from seeing documents about the program that allowed this to happen? Do we forget that the Justice department was created by Congress to carry out the laws passed by Congress. Do we forget that the Legislative Branch of the United States is tasked with making LAW. and the Executive branch is tasked with carrying it out. My friends if you are going to allow a President to decide what laws he wants to enforce and what laws he does not. And a department created by congress to choose what to and when to answer to said congress than you are asking for a Dictatorship. And I fear you will get one. What you are forgetting is this isn't new. Do you recall the last time congress held someone in contempt? It wasn't that long ago. |
| 2012-06-21 7:16 AM in reply to: #4272922 |
Champion 7347 SRQ, FL | Subject: RE: Ah yes, the "transparent" administration JoshR - 2012-06-21 8:02 AM CBarnes - 2012-06-20 10:00 PM Are we forgetting that a Border Patrol Agent who was defending our nation was killed by a weapon our government allowed to be sold to a known criminal? GAF about what Bush or Rove did why can the President prevent the Congress from seeing documents about the program that allowed this to happen? Do we forget that the Justice department was created by Congress to carry out the laws passed by Congress. Do we forget that the Legislative Branch of the United States is tasked with making LAW. and the Executive branch is tasked with carrying it out. My friends if you are going to allow a President to decide what laws he wants to enforce and what laws he does not. And a department created by congress to choose what to and when to answer to said congress than you are asking for a Dictatorship. And I fear you will get one. What you are forgetting is this isn't new. Do you recall the last time congress held someone in contempt? It wasn't that long ago. It was during Clinton's Whitewater scandal when they threatened to have a vote to hold AG Janet Reno in contempt. However it never went to a full vote. So this would be the first time for a cabinet official if it goes to a full House vote. |
| 2012-06-21 8:22 AM in reply to: #4272939 |
Elite 4564 Boise | Subject: RE: Ah yes, the "transparent" administration TriRSquared - 2012-06-21 6:16 AM JoshR - 2012-06-21 8:02 AM CBarnes - 2012-06-20 10:00 PM Are we forgetting that a Border Patrol Agent who was defending our nation was killed by a weapon our government allowed to be sold to a known criminal? GAF about what Bush or Rove did why can the President prevent the Congress from seeing documents about the program that allowed this to happen? Do we forget that the Justice department was created by Congress to carry out the laws passed by Congress. Do we forget that the Legislative Branch of the United States is tasked with making LAW. and the Executive branch is tasked with carrying it out. My friends if you are going to allow a President to decide what laws he wants to enforce and what laws he does not. And a department created by congress to choose what to and when to answer to said congress than you are asking for a Dictatorship. And I fear you will get one. What you are forgetting is this isn't new. Do you recall the last time congress held someone in contempt? It wasn't that long ago. It was during Clinton's Whitewater scandal when they threatened to have a vote to hold AG Janet Reno in contempt. However it never went to a full vote. So this would be the first time for a cabinet official if it goes to a full House vote. Actually it was Hariet Meyers during the whole US attorney's scandal in 2008. |
| 2012-06-21 8:31 AM in reply to: #4271915 |
Expert 1830 | Subject: RE: Ah yes, the "transparent" administration Am I disappointed in Obama's actions? Yes. Am I surprised? No. This is no different than any other politician. Candidate Obama spent a couple of years before the election telling anyone who would listen about why and how he was different. But, it turns out that he is the same as any other modern-day President that we elected. I am also disappointed when people bring up the old argument of "look what his predecessor did". If we as voters accept any of this type of behavior because "the guy before him did the same things", we will continue to get what we deserve, and the behavior will never change. Obama's "Hope and Change" is no different than Bush's "Compassionate Conservatism". They are the same wolves, and we (so far) are the same sheep.
|
| 2012-06-21 8:49 AM in reply to: #4273081 |
Champion 6056 Menomonee Falls, WI | Subject: RE: Ah yes, the "transparent" administration If the president is willing to invoke Executive Privilege during an election year to quash a snowballing scandal that is clearly gaining traction and has already resulted in the death of a US law enforcement official, I can only conclude that whatever is in those documents that Obama wants to keep secret must really have some damaging content. It's also odd to me that Holder has maintained all along that the "White House had no involvement" in the Fast and Furious program, but now it's that same White House that is using Executive Privilege-- a move that by definition implies White House involvement-- to keep the documents from becoming public. Huh? You can't have it both ways. This whole thing is smelling awfully Nixonian. Mr. Obama, your helicopter is waiting. |
| 2012-06-21 9:09 AM in reply to: #4273122 |
Master 1517 Western MA near the VT & NH border on the CT river | Subject: RE: Ah yes, the "transparent" administration scoobysdad - 2012-06-21 9:49 AM . This whole thing is smelling awfully Nixonian.
Im thinking more Iran/Contra. Selling weapons to our enemy to further a secret agenda that the white house had (allegedly) no knowledge of |
| 2012-06-21 9:12 AM in reply to: #4273055 |
Champion 7347 SRQ, FL | Subject: RE: Ah yes, the "transparent" administration JoshR - 2012-06-21 9:22 AM TriRSquared - 2012-06-21 6:16 AM JoshR - 2012-06-21 8:02 AM What you are forgetting is this isn't new. Do you recall the last time congress held someone in contempt? It wasn't that long ago. It was during Clinton's Whitewater scandal when they threatened to have a vote to hold AG Janet Reno in contempt. However it never went to a full vote. So this would be the first time for a cabinet official if it goes to a full House vote. Actually it was Hariet Meyers during the whole US attorney's scandal in 2008. She was White House Counsel, not a cabinet member. Edited by TriRSquared 2012-06-21 9:13 AM |
| 2012-06-21 9:23 AM in reply to: #4273201 |
Elite 4564 Boise | Subject: RE: Ah yes, the "transparent" administration TriRSquared - 2012-06-21 8:12 AM JoshR - 2012-06-21 9:22 AM TriRSquared - 2012-06-21 6:16 AM JoshR - 2012-06-21 8:02 AM What you are forgetting is this isn't new. Do you recall the last time congress held someone in contempt? It wasn't that long ago. It was during Clinton's Whitewater scandal when they threatened to have a vote to hold AG Janet Reno in contempt. However it never went to a full vote. So this would be the first time for a cabinet official if it goes to a full House vote. Actually it was Hariet Meyers during the whole US attorney's scandal in 2008. She was White House Counsel, not a cabinet member. I just asked the last time someone was held in contempt. I think we're getting bogged down in details here, though. |
 2012-06-21 9:42 AM in reply to: #4271915 |
| Subject: ... This user's post has been ignored. |
| 2012-06-21 9:52 AM in reply to: #4273194 |
| Champion 6056 Menomonee Falls, WI | Subject: RE: Ah yes, the "transparent" administration ratherbesnowboarding - 2012-06-21 9:09 AM scoobysdad - 2012-06-21 9:49 AM . This whole thing is smelling awfully Nixonian.
Im thinking more Iran/Contra. Selling weapons to our enemy to further a secret agenda that the white house had (allegedly) no knowledge of True. But I remember there were some pretty extensive hearings and investigative journalism being done about that, and no Executive Privilege being invoked to quash investigation. Stark contrast to Fast and Furious. |
| 2012-06-21 9:58 AM in reply to: #4273274 |
| Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Ah yes, the "transparent" administration AcesFull - 2012-06-21 9:42 AM Executive Privilege needs to be eliminated. Unfortunately, it has been affirmed by the SCOTUS. To be clear about the whole Obama Transparency issue, this is the first time he has exercised Executive Privilege, as compared to six uses of the same "right" by Bush and a whopping 14 times by Clinton (at least according to Wikipedia). I am against it's use by any president, at any time, but am also incredibly annoyed when someone cites Obama's single use as evidence of his inherent evilness, all the while having supported a guy who used it fairly often. At least I can claim a small bit of moral high ground when I say that the use of EP is morally wrong, regardless of who uses it. I agree it needs to go away no matter who is in power. You're also right about it only being the first time Obama has used EP, but I think the reason people are coming down on him so hard is mostly related to his bashing on Bush during his campaign for using it. People (especially partisans) love to call out hypocrisy when they see it. The President needs to figure something out with this whole Fast an Furious thing though because the more it appears that they're trying to "cover something up" the worse its going to hit him politically. |
| 2012-06-21 10:03 AM in reply to: #4273317 |
| Subject: ... This user's post has been ignored. |
| 2012-06-21 10:16 AM in reply to: #4273305 |
| Master 1517 Western MA near the VT & NH border on the CT river | Subject: RE: Ah yes, the "transparent" administration scoobysdad - 2012-06-21 10:52 AM ratherbesnowboarding - 2012-06-21 9:09 AM True. But I remember there were some pretty extensive hearings and investigative journalism being done about that, and no Executive Privilege being invoked to quash investigation. Stark contrast to Fast and Furious. scoobysdad - 2012-06-21 9:49 AM . This whole thing is smelling awfully Nixonian.
Im thinking more Iran/Contra. Selling weapons to our enemy to further a secret agenda that the white house had (allegedly) no knowledge of President Bush issuing pretrial pardons to his co-conspirators (like the sec of def) so evidence inditing the Reagan admin isnt on the same level? Or one CIA offical's case getting thrown out because the government refused to release documents needed for his defense? Splitting hairs. Presidential power was used - just differently but with the same result.
and no - this is not intended to be the 'your guy did it defense' either. I just think FF is more inline w/ the cover up of I/C than watergate - Thats all. I'm not trying to say which one was worse so the other gets a pass or s/b be prosecuted more Edited by ratherbesnowboarding 2012-06-21 10:17 AM |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK