- Joined
- Sep 13, 2007
- Messages
- 79,903
- Reaction score
- 20,981
- Location
- I love your hate.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Obama fails to disclose transition meetings
Obama fails to disclose transition meetings :: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: Lynn Sweet
WASHINGTON -- The Obama team, pledging the ''most open and transparent transition in history,'' gets an ''A'' for disclosing donors to the Jan. 20 inauguration and a ''F'' when it comes to revealing transition meetings with groups. Contrary to its own ''seat at the table transparency policy,'' meetings are not posted on a Web site.
During the presidential primary campaign, then candidate Obama, still an Illinois senator, made a pledge I heard for the first time on Oct. 24, 2007. In a school gym in Dover, N.H., Obama said if president, he would post his meetings on the Internet. That was interesting to me because Obama's Senate staff had been very selective about what Obama Senate-related meetings they disclosed and seemed to be guided by a ''less is best'' policy.
Interesting, was his talk of an open administration just another empty promise? I for one am unconcerned with this transition meeting stuff, other than to say, if you promise something, you should deliver.
Well he's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.
Nearly a month ago, I remember reading a similar story where Obama disclosed some details of a transitioning meeting with Bush and many of the members on this debateboard got all up in arms and saying how disrespectful it was towards Bush. That Obama shouldn't have disclosed any details in that meeting.
Now, that Obama is refusing to disclose details, again we're up in arms. Now he's "not keeping his word."
I think you are talking about two different things here. one is an executive courtesy, this is something he campaigned on.
Explain?
Interesting, was his talk of an open administration just another empty promise? I for one am unconcerned with this transition meeting stuff, other than to say, if you promise something, you should deliver.
Well if he said it in October 2007, he probably A) wasn't expecting to win, and B) probably unaware of what being president-elect entails.
I'd prefer that a president NOT disclose his daily private meetings (except under special circumstances). The quality of the advice the president receives will suffer, if people believe that their comments aren't confidential.
So he lied then? is this your argument?
So he lied then? is this your argument?
No, that's not what he said at all.
Do you ever have anything intelligent to say? Ever? For once in your ****ing life?
Jesus Tapdancing Christ.
So he lied then? is this your argument?
hmm since Captain posted after this, i assume this line of personal attack is ok? :lol:
But to answer the question, i play down to you kid, so you can keep up. :rofl
No, I don't think its something I would constitue as a lie, depending on the reason. If it was an issue that upon becoming President Elect he realized that some of the stuff in these meetings actually NEED to be kept confedential, and feeling that cutting out specific portions of it would seem worse than cutting the whole thing, then I would say it wasn't a Lie so much as new information came to light.
Sure, he may've had an inclination that was the case at the time of making the statement, but once its clearly evident sometimes things can change.
Do you believe he lied Reverend?
There is a proper way to question moderator action or inaction, and to request moderator action. How about you actually do it that way instead of some sarcastic remark in the wrong channel for it.
Then for the sake of "transparency" as he campaigned on it, should he at least say this?
I did not see any moderator action.
Yes. I didn't say it was a good move, I didn't say it is counter to what he campaigned on. I just don't consider it a "lie". I think this way for many of the same reasons that I don't buy a lot of the "Bush Lied" about certain things as well. To me a lie is something purposeful, where you said something purposefully to mislead and decieve or stating something you know full well to be untrue. In this case with Obama, without knowing the reasons he did it its hard for me to say he "lied" becuase the reasons why it happened is what would deterimine that for me.
MOST moderator action is unseen; indeed I'd say public warnings are barely half of all moderator action. You got an issue with a post, report it. You got an issue with a moderator not posting a public warning, you got places to complain about it. Sarcastic insults to Mods for not doing something YOU think they should do is speaking specifically about Mod Action (in this case, their inaction or PERCIEVED inaction.) You got issues with rule violations, you know the ways to persue it. Making sarcastic snipes at a moderator in thread is not one of those.
I fully agree. A lot of what I post here on Obama is tongue in cheek as the shoe is now on the other foot. I kinda tried to be clear that I thought it not a big deal in my 1st post
I noticed, and I agreed that it wasn't a big deal. And I can understand where you're going with the hypocracy angle.
I also have noticed the large amount of tongue in cheek threads. I would suggest that perhaps you should be a little less offended and upset with people that treat posts of yours, espicially new threads, that are obviously not serious and just meant to be almost childishly sarcastic or bitterly tongue in cheek in tone in a likewise unserious matter. You've pointed to some useful points that could lead to legitimate discussion in recent weeks, but so often you do it in an incredibly disingenuous and almost hcildish manner that just spurs and welcomes similar respones.
If someone starts a thread screaming about fascist republicans, they tend to get hostility and hyperbole right back when people respond. When you have people posting a thread with an obvious agenda that they try to hide, generally its responded with people ignoring their attempt to hide it and go at the agenda. When people post threads in a manner that it is obvious they're just being sarcastic or over the top in their tongue and cheek nature, it tends to cause those responding to it to respond to it like the joke its trying to be. And when people make a well thought out post actually asking a legitimate question or stating an opinion in an intelligent manner, often times its responded back in kind.
You get what you give. This isn't a complaint really, I can appreciate parody and tongue in cheek as well as anyone...I enjoy using it in my posts as well. But just a suggestion to not be so offended and be so offensive when people respond in kind. Its not that they don't want to discuss it, but if you won't start the thread serious often they won't take it serious...espicially when it is, as you said, a "lot" of your Obama posts.
You've pointed to some legitimate issues with him, I just wish more of the times you've done it it actually had some thoughts and intelligent discourse then you instead of generally non-stop tongue in cheek sarcasm.
Its reputation man.
You even said, a "Lot" of your posts about Obama have been tongue in cheek recently. Not serious. Borderline childish.
Yes, you do put an occasional one out there...and even the one you speak of, you did it in such a way that you were borderline condenscending and in such a way that you didn't do much to even explain your position but just stated a premise and demanded people to counter your premise that was in and of itself not predicated on common, universally accepted fact but opinion.
Yes, you don't get good responses in that thread? Why? Who knows. My opinion, you've recently and for some time been known as a joke poster when it comse to Obama. Everything has an agenda, nothing about your posts are honest attempts at discourse, almost everything you post about him has some alterior motive to "trap" people into saying something that they don't actually mean but you can spin to what you want. Most of your posts are either tongue in cheek, filled with insulting idiotic childish baiting like "dear leader" and other such crap, and is on par with trying to debate with a 5th grader. So yes, you do occasionally post a good serious thing...but people are immedietely suspicious and questioning of it becasue so much of the rest of your stuff is far from it.
There's a reason why the Truman Show was rather crappily recieved by the average person. There's a reason why comedy princess Whoopi gets eyes rolled at her when she tries to talk serious politics. There's a reason why conservatives didn't buy into what McCain was selling.
If you see someone doing a specific thing over, and over, and over again you're conditioned to expect that from them and conditioned to respond in that way to them...when they step outside of the box for short moments, they generally aren't taken seriously and still get treated as they previously have been. It takes about as long to change a perception as it takes to create one.
I don't care all to much. As long as its within the rules, people can post any way that makes them enjoy themselves. If they like to just have fun, be sarcastic, unserious, etc, more power to them. Look at Tucker Case, he very often posts in a tongue and cheek, sarcastic/humerous fashion. The difference is that when people respond to Tucker in kind and don't take him seriously, he doesn't blow up at them or claim their ducking his point or any other thing. The other difference is tucker rarely has an agenda with his tongue and cheek.
So post however you like, more poewr to you for that. Whatever makes it enjoyable. But no one is going to listen when you don't get many serious responses or when people don't bother to comment save to point out your obvious agenda or attempts to twist what people say/trap them.
You have all said this before. I took it, I thought about it, then I observed. These posters who derail my threads because of "reputation" do not have any better "Reputation" than I.
Incorrect.
What I have been saying is that while I post on a topic regarding a current topic, I am well aware of the likley hypocritical stance some will take on the issue now that the shoe is on the other foot. I make light of it by trying to mention it in the 1st post so as not to be accused of as I often am of "baiting" or "Trolling" or other some such nonsense for daring to post a thread critical of Obama.
Tell me zyph, what threads of mine latley are childish and why?
I am trying to step cautiously here as this is truly a gift watching some of this hypocricy I see and don't want to spoil it
Condescending? Maybe, but if you saw the shennagigans I was put through in the other thread, I submit it was warranted.
My position was simple. I stated that "white man's greed" is a racist statment, and his calling his grandmothers racism "typical of white people" also racist. I spent half a thread with the usual suspects claiming I took him out of context. I simply asked what said context was, I was assaulted with nonsense. So I started a thread asking what that context was..... I applaud the 2 out of 20 posters (or so) who attempted to explain it..... Look at the rest.
I also submit I put forth more on topic non condescending threads than condescending ones. I am open to being proven wrong.
Hmm, I don't start into the "Dear leader" stuff until the obama supporter starts in on me. Look at what you called of my posts "childish" and then look a few posts up to see where it began. Two wrongs do not make a right indeed, however, after months of it, it's hard not to fall into it...
Look at IT's Hatueys', adk's, iriemons, and a plethora of others behaivor, why no singling out of them?
Maybe I am missing something. but Obama is the new president. Me starting ANY thread on him is topical on a debate forum. Thier baiting and hijacking is the CHILDISH behavior.
Go ahead post my childish threads. I will show you 10 more that weren't.
Reputation is a two way street.
My reputation being the issue for others poor behaivor is a cop out.
That is cool. See there is a kabal of a group of 5-10 posters this is a big issue for, most it is not. This is why I get along with most everyone here. You see me as a big bad wolf when I am not.
To me a lie is something purposeful, where you said something purposefully to mislead and decieve or stating something you know full well to be untrue.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?