It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Democrat Rep: ‘You Don’t Have a Right to Know’ What’s Going on in Your Government

page: 2
18
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 09:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: buster2010

What were they discussing anyway ?



About them wanting to question an adviser to the President. Maybe you should actually watch the video you may learn something.




posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 09:05 PM
link   



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 09:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Bassago



Fact is this administration (and followers) flat doesn't give a damn about anything except their personal progressive agenda.

It is also the same way with the GOP and their agenda.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 09:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Diderot
a reply to: xuenchen

Hello again xuenchen, The sole question that I have presented, is whether I need to point out the difference between what she said and what you claim she said. She said "You don't have a right to know everything" to a House Oversight Committee, and you distort that into a claim that the committee has no right to know what is going on in government!
Maybe you meant that she said that you and I have no right to know. I know that your grasp of the English language is not so flawed as to be oblivious to the difference.



Here's her direct quote again...



“You don’t have a right to know everything in a separation-of-powers government, my friend. That is the difference between a parliamentary government and a separation-of-powers government,” Norton claimed during a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing.




What's the difference between a parliamentary government and a separation-of-powers government ?

Or does it matter.




posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 09:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: buster2010

What were they discussing anyway ?



About them wanting to question an adviser to the President. Maybe you should actually watch the video you may learn something.


Thank You..

Beats watching a boring 45 minute video.



Wonder what that "adviser" is hiding ??

I think the Committee has every right to know !!

And so does the Public.




posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 09:13 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen




What's the difference between a parliamentary government and a separation-of-powers government


Um. In a parliamentary government the executive branch would consist of a cabinet that is responsible to the legislature. If that was a rhetorical question, it was a fail.

EDIT:

In case you were asking a serious question:


Every week the British prime minister appears before the House of Commons and must answer questions put to him or her by the members of Parliament. Sometimes it is suggested that the president of the United States should be subject to similar questioning by members of Congress, as a way of encouraging closer interaction between president and Congress. If the president did so, however, it would be his or her choice; the president is elected directly by the people and is answerable to the voters rather than the legislature. Whereas the prime minister has no choice because he or she is a member of Parliament and is directly accountable to that body. Herein lies a very basic difference between the presidential system of government as it exists in the United States and the parliamentary system that has evolved in Great Britain.

source
edit on 2014-7-25 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)

edit on 2014-7-25 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 09:18 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

No, no, no...he's a seasoned thread starter. Just posting the title of the source article. Completely absolving himself of guilt or spreading non-sense. Don't-shoot-the-messenger sort of stuff. You know.

Anyway! I watched the 18 second video in the OP and the 49 minute video farther down. It's exactly like when Karl Rove testified before congress. Rove Testifies, But Next Steps In Probe Remain Murky


The White House's foot-dragging may have inflicted some measure of political damage. But in terms of the legal repercussions, by coming to a deal while the case was still pending in an appeals court, the Bushies have largely succeeded in one of their goals: ensuring that no clear precedent has been established limiting the president's power to claim executive privilege in such cases. And the Obama White House's role in helping to secure the deal for Rove's testimony suggests that's an outcome they wanted too.


And if you want to say that Rep. Norton is parroting Nancy Pelosi, maybe you should know your history:

Following up on the news, House Speaker Pelosi has released this statement touting a victory for justice:

"The agreement for Karl Rove and Harriet Miers to testify upholds a fundamental principle: no one is above the law and Congressional subpoenas must be complied with."


So...we can take sides and argue about it...or we can wait for the third branch to decide who's right if congressional Republicans decide they need to repeat history.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 09:24 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Oh Dear, Dear Mister Xuenchen,

"What's the difference between a parliamentary government and a separation-of-powers government ?"

This reply is not up to your high standards that we all know and love.

Xuenchen et formidable! No?



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 09:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Bassago

So you agree that the Tea Party source in the OP is extremely misleading?

EDIT:

I'm not defending Obama or his administration, I'm just pointing out that this is an example of propaganda using an out of context sound bite to manufacture the perception of a slight against the public.


I believe we are buried up to our necks in propaganda. Both from the left and the right. I usually just speak out in regard to specific transgressions, as far as I can see both sides are a lost cause. That doesn't diminish the lameness of her inarticulate statements though.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 09:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010
a reply to: Bassago



Fact is this administration (and followers) flat doesn't give a damn about anything except their personal progressive agenda.

It is also the same way with the GOP and their agenda.


Agreed, but in this case we aren't discussing some stupid GOP statement like Aiken's "legitimate rape" pronouncements. This is purely a stupid protect the administration at all costs democrat thing.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 09:36 PM
link   
OOOOkkk

So Eleanor Holmes Norton was simply "over defending" by "over reacting" and "over simplifying"

Now it makes sense.



The hearing was to examine the reopening of the White House political office, which had been closed in 2011 after the Office of the Special Council found it had violated the Hatch Act, which prohibits taxpayer funds from being used to pay government workers for political activity. The office reopened in 2014, and though Issa said there was no indication of wrongdoing, the committee has "an absolute right and obligation" to conduct oversight.

WH adviser defies House subpoena (again)



Eleanor Holmes Norton is convinced this information is beyond the scope of checks & balances.

Now I understand the drama.

Geesh. All the guy had to do was take the 5th or lie.

God forbid he should actually testify and come clean.




posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 09:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bassago

originally posted by: buster2010
a reply to: Bassago



Fact is this administration (and followers) flat doesn't give a damn about anything except their personal progressive agenda.

It is also the same way with the GOP and their agenda.


Agreed, but in this case we aren't discussing some stupid GOP statement like Aiken's "legitimate rape" pronouncements. This is purely a stupid protect the administration at all costs democrat thing.


No it is not. As she said they have different ways of getting the information but they are lazy and really don't know what they want. Like she said it is nothing more than fishing expedition and that is not proper procedure.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 09:46 PM
link   
a reply to: buster2010


No it is not. As she said they have different ways of getting the information but they are lazy and really don't know what they want. Like she said it is nothing more than fishing expedition and that is not proper procedure.


What "other ways" are there ?

I think she was just over defending the Obama.Lie agenda.




posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 09:53 PM
link   
a reply to: buster2010

If there's anything that can be said about Issa's chairmanship of that committee it's that they don't know what they want to know. More subpoena's issued in the last three years than any committee before.

Darrell Issa’s record-breaking subpoena-palooza


Issa's 96 subpoenas have been issued without any debate or vote in the committee.

Many of Issa’s efforts appear to pure mischief making — not all of which are appreciated by his own party.


Today even: Darrell Issa Concedes No Wrongdoing By White House Office, Pushes Subpoena Anyway

"We are accusing neither the president nor this four-person office of any wrongdoing," Issa said, adding, "I allege no wrongdoing."



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 09:58 PM
link   
a reply to: links234


If there's anything that can be said about Issa's chairmanship of that committee it's that they don't know what they want to know. More subpoena's issued in the last three years than any committee before.


I bet that's because they have more valid reasons than ever before !!

What else could it possibly be ?




posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 10:02 PM
link   
a reply to: links234


No, no, no...he's a seasoned thread starter. Just posting the title of the source article. Completely absolving himself of guilt or spreading non-sense. Don't-shoot-the-messenger sort of stuff. You know.


Aye yes.

I keep forgetting this is a Yale classroom civics simulation experiment.

How forgetful of me.

I keep thinking this is a conspiracy forum or something.




posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 10:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
What else could it possibly be ?


I don't know. Darrell Issa won't hold hearings over the subpoenas, he just issues them. No debate, no voting. Just issuing. Real voice of the people that guy is.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 10:15 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen
When was this video,,,, 2010?

Another Obama Promise of Openness!!!
This next video, you only have to got to LIE # 3.

Transparency, That's a Laugh, This entire Administration in Transparently Crooked and Evil, Now that is Transparent!
They only refuse to meet the with the terms of the subpoenas because they have something to hide.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 10:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: links234

originally posted by: xuenchen
What else could it possibly be ?


I don't know. Darrell Issa won't hold hearings over the subpoenas, he just issues them. No debate, no voting. Just issuing. Real voice of the people that guy is.


Oh that's nothing.

He's just following Obama by fighting fire with fire that's all.

Not that he actually has the authority or anything like that.




posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 10:23 PM
link   
Separation of powers makes me giggle. Its based on a rule of thirds scenario. We the people can elect those who make the laws. But we do not directly elect those who enforce the laws such as the president, since thats the Electoral College's job, and they put in who they want, no matter what anyone argues. And the Supreme Court justices are placed into power at the pleasure of the president. So you my friends only have one third power in this system, and they have two thirds. The people lose. Funny, but we should have been able to see what was in Obamacare before they voted on it, since thats technically the domain of the people. How very interesting....



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join