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

[ivwshane]

and the percentage is also up in terms of the denials and the length to respond.

33% failure rate on the denials.



The discussion is about Obama, not others.
Obama was the one that boasted transparency. You and others have fought against the evidence;
Now when the evidence is in your face and from the Obama administration itself; you try to deflect (as usual)

You aren't very smart are you? Not only have I not fought against the evidence, I, unlike you, haven't deflected anything.

Let me help you:

Obama is the most transparent president ever does not equal the Obama president is transparent.

Do you see the difference? Do you understand the significance of the difference? Do you get why citing current facts with no comparison to past presidents kind of makes it hard to counter Obamas claim?

Do you get it now or do you need pictures?

 

[ivwshane]

He is the one making the claim.



He is the one making the claim, and there's plenty of evidence to the contrary -- even without the damning FOIA report by the AP.



obummer and his minions are the ones making the claim, the onus is on them to support it.

Well let me call up Obama and have him join this forum so he can back up his claim, in the meanwhile you continue with your claim that he is wrong despite not providing any evidence to the contrary.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Nothing surprising. The last guy was a liar, the current guy is a liar, the next guy will be a liar if it helps get him elected. Democrats and Republicans are really much the same, they just use different talking points for votes. But both are for big intrusive government and more power. Elected royalty.

 

[ivwshane]

Nothing surprising. The last guy was a liar, the current guy is a liar, the next guy will be a liar if it helps get him elected. Democrats and Republicans are really much the same, they just use different talking points for votes. But both are for big intrusive government and more power. Elected royalty.

Both are the same? That's a cop out for those too lazy to think for themselves. They both may be liars but they are hardly the same, your failure to see the difference is a reflection on you.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Both are the same? That's a cop out for those too lazy to think for themselves. They both may be liars but they are hardly the same, your failure to see the difference is a reflection on you.

I feel your refusal to see how we get the same crooked two faced politicians over and over regardless of blue or red shows who is too lazy to think for themselves.

Conservatives claim they are for limited government, but yet have no problem with things like police check points (prove your innocence, screw you 4th amendment) and the War on Drugs. Conservatives say they are for fiscal responsibility, but can you tell me the last Republican president to operate with a balanced budget? Scott Walker is backed by the Tea Party, yet my state has the fifth worst tax burden of all states. Hmm...

Many Democrats seem to think the 2nd amendment is too scary for today's world and also like big intrusive government, but at least they don't try and hide it. They also like to tax and spend (did you find out who the last Republican to have a balanced budget was?), but again at least they are up relatively front about it.

In your opinion, tell me what the big differences are between how Bush operated and how Obama operates today.

 

[ivwshane]

I feel your refusal to see how we get the same crooked two faced politicians over and over regardless of blue or red shows who is too lazy to think for themselves.

Conservatives claim they are for limited government, but yet have no problem with things like police check points (prove your innocence, screw you 4th amendment) and the War on Drugs. Conservatives say they are for fiscal responsibility, but can you tell me the last Republican president to operate with a balanced budget? Scott Walker is backed by the Tea Party, yet my state has the fifth worst tax burden of all states. Hmm...

Many Democrats seem to think the 2nd amendment is too scary for today's world and also like big intrusive government, but at least they don't try and hide it. They also like to tax and spend (did you find out who the last Republican to have a balanced budget was?), but again at least they are up relatively front about it.

In your opinion, tell me what the big differences are between how Bush operated and how Obama operates today.

Obama operates a slightly more transparent administration. I'll take positive moves over staying in place due to false equivalency any day.

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


Could it be better? Absolutely! Is he perfect? Hell no! Does that make him as bad as the rest? No.

 

[cabri]

Obama operates a slightly more transparent administration. I'll take positive moves over staying in place due to false equivalency any day.

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


Could it be better? Absolutely! Is he perfect? Hell no! Does that make him as bad as the rest? No.

Yet his administration has gotten worse when release documents - POSITIVE change

 

[ivwshane]

Yet his administration has gotten worse when release documents - POSITIVE change

Try English next time

 

[SlowSpyder]

Obama operates a slightly more transparent administration. I'll take positive moves over staying in place due to false equivalency any day.

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


Could it be better? Absolutely! Is he perfect? Hell no! Does that make him as bad as the rest? No.

A slightly more transparent government in your opinion? Look at the subject of this thread. Look at Hillary and her emails. Government transparency was simply a talking point to get votes, but in reality it's Bush II, more of the same.

 

[ivwshane]

A slightly more transparent government in your opinion? Look at the subject of this thread. Look at Hillary and her emails. Government transparency was simply a talking point to get votes, but in reality it's Bush II, more of the same.

That's the difference between you and me, I don't just look at the subject of a thread and cry wolf, I'm actually capable of looking beyond talking points. I provided a link that gave a fairly accurate assessment of this admins transparency, did you bother to read it? Of course you didn't, you decided to double down on stupid and scream false equivalencies even louder.

More of the same? Only in your bubble.

 

[Knowing]

By what measure is the administration that promised to protect whistleblowers instead prosecuting select leakers (good leaks go unpunished) more than any other more transparent?

By what measure is the administration that holds transparency and the rule of law as touchstones receiving an award for the same at a secret meeting before setting a new record on FOIA denials "transparent"?

Or is it that Obama doesn't know what's going on in Washington until he sees it on TV?

 

[Genx87]

By what measure is the administration that promised to protect whistleblowers instead prosecuting select leakers (good leaks go unpunished) more than any other more transparent?

By what measure is the administration that holds transparency and the rule of law as touchstones receiving an award for the same at a secret meeting before setting a new record on FOIA denials "transparent"?

Or is it that Obama doesn't know what's going on in Washington until he sees it on TV?

I asked him a similar question 2 pages ago. Expect a response of him asking you to prove the administrations transparency along with childish insults.

Don't waste your time trying to get him to answer anything of substance.

 

[SlowSpyder]

That's the difference between you and me, I don't just look at the subject of a thread and cry wolf, I'm actually capable of looking beyond talking points. I provided a link that gave a fairly accurate assessment of this admins transparency, did you bother to read it? Of course you didn't, you decided to double down on stupid and scream false equivalencies even louder.

More of the same? Only in your bubble.

My point is no matter which side is in office we're going to get a politician who follows what the lobbyists say and follows the donor money. Neither side seems to care if they don't effectively govern anymore.

You can fist pump over Obama being statistically more transparent all you want. The very subject of this thread would suggest he's not especially forth coming with information he doesn't want out there regardless of the law. He's more of the same as the guy before him and the next guy will be more of the same again.

 

[ivwshane]

My point is no matter which side is in office we're going to get a politician who follows what the lobbyists say and follows the donor money. Neither side seems to care if they don't effectively govern anymore.

You can fist pump over Obama being statistically more transparent all you want. The very subject of this thread would suggest he's not especially forth coming with information he doesn't want out there regardless of the law. He's more of the same as the guy before him and the next guy will be more of the same again.

Do you think that if voters wanted a more transparent politician and kept voting for the politician who actually was more transparent, that politicians would then try to be more transparent? Before you answer I'll remind you to look at the GOP and ask yourself; why do they keep moving to the right? Why do they keep trying to out righty each other?

Now suppose voters want a transparent politician but they think all politicians aren't transparent no matter if they are or not, what's the incentive for them to be more transparent?

You get the government you vote for and if don't think there are different degrees if transparency or that those difference don't matter then you will get an elected official who doesn't care either.

 

[ivwshane]

I asked him a similar question 2 pages ago. Expect a response of him asking you to prove the administrations transparency along with childish insults.

Don't waste your time trying to get him to answer anything of substance.

Any moment now obama will chime in here to answer your question about the claim he made!

I'm sure that will be when you back up the claim you and others made. I know, I know, it's not up to you to support your claim, it's up to me to disapprove it. Because that's how debates work...never.