Obama declares White House no longer subject to Freedom of Information Act

[fskimospy]

No. Every president makes promises, but this particular one ran on a platform of hope and change with clear openness and transparency as it's hallmark. In fact, obummer not only promised that numerous times during his campaigns, he continues to claim that his administration is "the most transparent administration ever".

Saying "well, it's just bad as the guys before him" doesn't work when he claims to be different and better than all the guys before him.

Typical hypocrite scumbag.

Every president claims to be better than the ones before them.

 

[ivwshane]

No. Every president makes promises, but this particular one ran on a platform of hope and change with clear openness and transparency as it's hallmark. In fact, obummer not only promised that numerous times during his campaigns, he continues to claim that his administration is "the most transparent administration ever".

Saying "well, it's just bad as the guys before him" doesn't work when he claims to be different and better than all the guys before him.

Typical hypocrite scumbag.

Can you quantify that? Define transparent and then show us how Obama is less transparent than his predecessors.

 

[dank69]

On what grounds?

You are engaging a turnip.

 

[rudeguy]

You are engaging a turnip.

Yea but he pipes up in favor of right wing things all the time. I would much rather discredit him than have others assume all of us right wingers are as stupid as him.

 

[dank69]

Yea but he pipes up in favor of right wing things all the time. I would much rather discredit him than have others assume all of us right wingers are as stupid as him.

Anyone that pays any attention already knows, but have at it if you are so inclined. Be prepared for disappointment.

 

[PokerGuy]

Every president claims to be better than the ones before them.

Of course they do. That's not the point. It's like the "morals" candidate who runs on a platform of family values and gets busted with a hooker and drugs. It's bad regardless of who does it, but it's worse when the person doing it is a complete hypocrite pretending to be something he's not.

He ran on a platform that included "transparency and openness", and "change". Hypocrite scum.

Can you quantify that? Define transparent and then show us how Obama is less transparent than his predecessors.

He ran on the basis of being more transparent and open. Saying "well, he's not less transparent than those before him" doesn't work, even if it was true.

 

[soulcougher73]

So it's OK because someone else did it before him?

I learned in kindergarten that wasn't the correct way to think.

I think his point is that you never seemed to care before now that it was going on.

 

[rudeguy]

I think his point is that you never seemed to care before now that it was going on.

So you know what he was thinking about how I felt back when I was feeling it?


Yawn

 

[Darwin333]

Pretty much this. Even if congress manages to get the law amended, I doubt Obama would sign it. It's a moot point as I doubt Reid will let it get by the Senate.

As to your first statement, this is why there are so many that want a smaller, less intrusive government. The only way to limit the potential for corruption and overstepping authority is to limit the size and scope of the government - irrespective of who is in charge of said government.

In all fairness the same would hold true if it was a Republican in the White House and a Republican senate. Hell I doubt that either side would change it regardless of who is in the White House because they know eventually a guy from their side will hold the presidency.

Sure they bitch and scream when the other side does it but that is just to distract us.

 

[ivwshane]

Of course they do. That's not the point. It's like the "morals" candidate who runs on a platform of family values and gets busted with a hooker and drugs. It's bad regardless of who does it, but it's worse when the person doing it is a complete hypocrite pretending to be something he's not.

He ran on a platform that included "transparency and openness", and "change". Hypocrite scum.



He ran on the basis of being more transparent and open. Saying "well, he's not less transparent than those before him" doesn't work, even if it was true.

You didn't answer the question. If he ran on being the most transparent president then how does one judge that? How has he been less transparent than past presidents? It's a claim you and others continue to make and fail to quantify.

Now if you were to say that he's not transparent enough for you, that's fine, but that's a different argument.

 

[cabri]

You didn't answer the question. If he ran on being the most transparent president then how does one judge that? How has he been less transparent than past presidents? It's a claim you and others continue to make and fail to quantify.

Now if you were to say that he's not transparent enough for you, that's fine, but that's a different argument.

How about comparing his actions to what he originally stated; both on the campaign trail and after election.

Transparency is to hold things up for scrutiny; allow the public/media to have input and view actions; hiding nothing.

It is not like he has been blindsided by the way the government works; he was an elected representative in Congress. He knew what goes on.

He made the statements; now when they are being applied; the waters all of a sudden become muddied and the goal posts moved. by both his administration and his supporters.

When the opponents do something it is bad; when their side does the same; it does not matter, did not happen; wrong color paint, etc.

 

[Genx87]

You didn't answer the question. If he ran on being the most transparent president then how does one judge that? How has he been less transparent than past presidents? It's a claim you and others continue to make and fail to quantify.

Now if you were to say that he's not transparent enough for you, that's fine, but that's a different argument.

We need to hear how you define transparent before proceeding with this topic.
If anybody believes Obama administration has been the "most" transparent in history. Lets hear how they arrive at that conclusion first.

 

[PokerGuy]

You didn't answer the question. If he ran on being the most transparent president then how does one judge that? How has he been less transparent than past presidents? It's a claim you and others continue to make and fail to quantify.

No, the onus is not to show how he is less transparent -- the onus is on the administration to show how they are MORE transparent and open, since that is their claim (as stated by obummer himself). The topic of this thread is itself an example. Instead of more transparency, the administration has just made the lack of transparency under Bush and now obummer official. No FOIA requests for the office of administration, no transparency. Reveal as little as possible. That doesn't square with the "more open and transparent" claims and promises. Also, more effort to prosecute information leakers and whistle blowers, more spying on reporters who sniff around and ask questions etc.

When hillary's non-state-dept email scheme to avoid scrutiny on her nefarious activities was exposed, the immediate reaction was "hey, the people before us did it too!". Arguing that you're as bad as the last guy doesn't exactly bolster your contention that you're more open and transparent does it?

 

[sportage]

Just seen in the headlines "Obama calls Senator's Behavior Disturbing".
You know what that means?
Obama plans to have all the far right wing radical activist republicans arrested, then hopefully deported to Guantanamo as terrorist.
I'm ok with that.
After all, old George Washington would have done the very same.
Abe Lincoln also the same.

Especially after republicans sent a letter to the Queen advising her Majesty to ignore any deals with President Washington.

And with Abe and the Civil War, republicans sending letters to the South that the Emancipation Proclamation was DOA.

We all know Guantanamo is the only proper place for republicans like Boehner, Cruz, Paul, little Lindsey Graham, and the rest of them.
What would old George do?
Or Abe?

Washington would have had them shot.
And Abe, had them hung.
Hung up all together in a nice neat little row.
I'm ok with that.

 

[FerrelGeek]

I agree.

In all fairness the same would hold true if it was a Republican in the White House and a Republican senate. Hell I doubt that either side would change it regardless of who is in the White House because they know eventually a guy from their side will hold the presidency.

Sure they bitch and scream when the other side does it but that is just to distract us.

 

[FerrelGeek]

Off your meds again, I see. What does any of your deranged blather have to do with the topic at hand? The discussion is about the Obama admin going along with the practices of
prior admins regarding transparency.

Try to focus for a minute, dear boy. Do you agree with the Obama admin's decision to (albeit legally) exempt themselves for the FOIA? Do you think he's broken one of his hallmark campaign promises, re: transparency?

Just seen in the headlines "Obama calls Senator's Behavior Disturbing".
You know what that means?
Obama plans to have all the far right wing radical activist republicans arrested, then hopefully deported to Guantanamo as terrorist.
I'm ok with that.
After all, old George Washington would have done the very same.
Abe Lincoln also the same.

Especially after republicans sent a letter to the Queen advising her Majesty to ignore any deals with President Washington.

And with Abe and the Civil War, republicans sending letters to the South that the Emancipation Proclamation was DOA.

We all know Guantanamo is the only proper place for republicans like Boehner, Cruz, Paul, little Lindsey Graham, and the rest of them.
What would old George do?
Or Abe?

Washington would have had them shot.
And Abe, had them hung.
Hung up all together in a nice neat little row.
I'm ok with that.

 

[ivwshane]

Lol! Typical.

For one, I haven't made any claim to Obamas transparency one way or another. However others, have not only stated obama isn't transparent but that he's also the least transparent. So maybe you guys should take your own advice and define what transparency means to you and then show how Obama, compared to other presidents is less transparent.

Of course none of you will do that but you will continue your useless whining complaining about failed campaign promises all while never holding any other politician to the same standard.

I await your further deflecting

How about comparing his actions to what he originally stated; both on the campaign trail and after election.

Transparency is to hold things up for scrutiny; allow the public/media to have input and view actions; hiding nothing.

It is not like he has been blindsided by the way the government works; he was an elected representative in Congress. He knew what goes on.

He made the statements; now when they are being applied; the waters all of a sudden become muddied and the goal posts moved. by both his administration and his supporters.

When the opponents do something it is bad; when their side does the same; it does not matter, did not happen; wrong color paint, etc.

We need to hear how you define transparent before proceeding with this topic.
If anybody believes Obama administration has been the "most" transparent in history. Lets hear how they arrive at that conclusion first.

No, the onus is not to show how he is less transparent -- the onus is on the administration to show how they are MORE transparent and open, since that is their claim (as stated by obummer himself). The topic of this thread is itself an example. Instead of more transparency, the administration has just made the lack of transparency under Bush and now obummer official. No FOIA requests for the office of administration, no transparency. Reveal as little as possible. That doesn't square with the "more open and transparent" claims and promises. Also, more effort to prosecute information leakers and whistle blowers, more spying on reporters who sniff around and ask questions etc.

When hillary's non-state-dept email scheme to avoid scrutiny on her nefarious activities was exposed, the immediate reaction was "hey, the people before us did it too!". Arguing that you're as bad as the last guy doesn't exactly bolster your contention that you're more open and transparent does it?

 

[soulcougher73]

So you know what he was thinking about how I felt back when I was feeling it?


Yawn

Yeah i can almost guarentee had this article come up when Bush was pres your responce would be..."yawn". Even though its been going on forever.

 

[nickqt]

First, let's be clear. Obama hasn't declared that he won't comply with the FOIA. Instead, the Bush administration decided that a particular bureaucratic arm wouldn't be accountable to the FOIA, the Obama administration did the same, and a Federal Appeals court agreed.

Second, the whole "transparency" thing was a campaign statement. If you want to argue that Obama hasn't been transparent, then that's fine, but let's not pretend that St. Ronald Reagan was more transparent when he was selling missiles to Iran to finance Central American death squads. In fact, expecting the President to be transparent in regards to everything is utterly stupid. They are going to do all sorts of things without telling the rabble about it. In fact, if Obama or any US President were to tell you all the stuff they were doing, it would probably be considered a breach of NationalSecurity™.

Shorter me: this is just another KingObama™ thread. Yes, he's taken away all your freedoms and your country. Of course he has. Which is why you aren't able to complain about it on your local street corner or on the internet without being arrested and sent to a FEMA camp while having all your guns taken away.

Yawn, indeed.

 

[PokerGuy]

So maybe you guys should take your own advice and define what transparency means to you and then show how Obama, compared to other presidents is less transparent.

No, you are confused. He is the one who promised to have the most open and transparent administration, and then repeatedly claims that his administration is the most open and transparent one yet. It's not up to me to show how he is less transparent, it's up to him and his administration to demonstrate how they are more open and transparent if they're going to make those claims. I haven't seen anything to support his statements, everything I've seen points to the opposite.

while never holding any other politician to the same standard.

What other politician had "open and transparent" government as a major part of his political platform, and has repeatedly claimed to have the most open and transparent administration? I'll hold him to the same standard.

 

[cabri]

Lol! Typical.

For one, I haven't made any claim to Obamas transparency one way or another. However others, have not only stated obama isn't transparent but that he's also the least transparent. So maybe you guys should take your own advice and define what transparency means to you and then show how Obama, compared to other presidents is less transparent.

Of course none of you will do that but you will continue your useless whining complaining about failed campaign promises all while never holding any other politician to the same standard.

I await your further deflecting

Obama is the one in office that ran on the HOPE, CHANGE, TRANSPARENCY issue.

He was trying to separate himself from all the other sleeze balls/politicians before him and those who were running against him.

It was he that issued those words and made it a slogan.
All the sheep accepted what he was spouting as gospel due to the fact of what had gone on before.

Now when his words are being held up for all to see how accountable he is; his followers try to avoid the shining light.

 

[nickqt]

Obama is the one in office that ran on the HOPE, CHANGE, TRANSPARENCY issue.

He was trying to separate himself from all the other sleeze balls/politicians before him and those who were running against him.

It was he that issued those words and made it a slogan.
All the sheep accepted what he was spouting as gospel due to the fact of what had gone on before.

Now when his words are being held up for all to see how accountable he is; his followers try to avoid the shining light.

Sheep.

Take a shot!

I love it when people assume that their political opponent is a blind follower just because they didn't vote for your favored candidate.

There are true believers who listened to Obama make campaign speeches and bought everything said. Just as there were true believers who listened to McCain/Rmoney and bought everything they said.

There are also people who aren't blind followers. People who don't consider Obama the messiah. But voted for Obama because they found McCain and Frau Palin, or Rmoney to be the worse choice.

Obama said hope, and hope is subjective. So is change. So is transparency, since you're unable to point at anything that Obama has done to make the big bad gub'mint less transparent.

You can keep using conjuring words like sheep and Gospel, but when the other "sleazeball candidates" that you help elect get elected, I'll use those words against you, and they'll be just as accurate.

Keep on keepin' on.

 

[kinev]

Lol! Typical.

For one, I haven't made any claim to Obamas transparency one way or another. However others, have not only stated obama isn't transparent but that he's also the least transparent. So maybe you guys should take your own advice and define what transparency means to you and then show how Obama, compared to other presidents is less transparent.

Of course none of you will do that but you will continue your useless whining complaining about failed campaign promises all while never holding any other politician to the same standard.

I await your further deflecting

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...e-most-transparent-administration-in-history/

"Nevertheless, at this moment, although the administration may still wind up as one of the better ones of the sunshine era, it may not serve as the model for the most transparent administration yet to come."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Post
On October 17, 2008, The Post endorsed Barack Obama for President of the United States.[48] On October 25, 2012, the newspaper endorsed the re-election of Barack Obama.

 

[JEDIYoda]

I did see that, but that makes it legal, not right.

playing word games..rofl

 

[schmuckley]

On what grounds?

http://www.foia.gov/