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.

 

White House gets 'A' for openness

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 07:26 AM
link   
The White House gets an A for openness? So, exactly how does this compute? The transparency mentioned during his inauguration speech has not been forthcoming.. This really is kind of pathetic, in so many ways. I guess glad handing this administration really has become the norm. I guess I'll go watch the health care reform on CSPAN now.....oh, wait?

www.politico.com...




posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 07:36 AM
link   


The report — released by the nonprofit groups Common Cause, Democracy 21, the League of Women Voters and U.S. PIRG — gave the administration high marks across the board for its various initiatives to increase transparency and reduce the power of lobbyists, both of which were key elements in candidate Barack Obama’s campaign pledge to change the way Washington works. Read more: www.politico.com...


Bologna sausage!

What are the odds the obama administration will win the super bowl?



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 07:38 AM
link   
This is all a joke, now stop using your brain and rely entirely on emotions.



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 08:09 AM
link   
Ok, so the president is in charge of Congress? What article is that under in the Constitution?


Some people are so stupid that they actually think that the open and transparent promise would really travel over to our legislative branch. The people that believed that are the same people that get duped by Nigerian scam artists.

Now the white house itself has been quite open and transparent. However, this lot on this board doesn't want to see that because they want to focus on hating the president just to hate the president.

It's sad and pathetic.

If the House and Senate aren't being transparent enough, blame them. It's their fault not the presidents. If you haven't figured out by now that we have three branches to this government, (and what the difference between them are) you really shouldn't be discussing politics at all. Perhaps debating show tunes would be more to your intellectual abilities?



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 08:33 AM
link   
The White House gets an A for openness? Gotta be some kind of joke. Was it openness when BO had all those closed door sessions with only the democrats during the health care talks?



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
Some people are so stupid that they actually think that the open and transparent promise would really travel over to our legislative branch.


And some people are so stupid they actually thought the campaign promises made by Barry would be followed through on, such as openness and transparency


Now the white house itself has been quite open and transparent.


Really? REALLY? Hmmmm what about closed door, democrap only health care reform meetings - really open there Barry!


It's sad and pathetic.


More than you know whatukno, more than you know!


you really shouldn't be discussing politics at all.


I couldn't have said it better myself, you shouldn't be discussing politics at all, at least until you take off your rose colored barry glasses.

Thanks for the time - at least your slanted post made me chuckle. And just so you know I don't 'lean' one way or the other like SOME people on here, wait for my republicrap thread I have been working on. It goes all the way back to Reagan. We just need to see politics for what it is. The same side of a one sided coin

Dorian Soran



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 08:55 AM
link   
A is for apples and a**holes.

If anyone believes this, I have some **** sandwiches for sale. Very tasty, and always served warm.


Transparency in government is fallacious in all its glory.


The Administration's "supposed" press secretary position should have been renamed decades ago to Propaganda Minister.

An A, this would be one of the greatest jokes ever if it wasn't so frelling Propaganda oriented.


[edit on 1/13/2010 by endisnighe]



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 09:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Dorian Soran
 


Glad to see fellow Wisconsites have the ability to see the Dem/Repub paradigm.

I got to have a convo with Ron Kind awhile back on a radio show here in Wisconsin. Not to say I did brilliantly, but I did get him to stick both of his feet in his ample mouth.

The host ripped him a new one for making light of my question on my share of the debt. He actually said if I would like to pay in check or cash, frelling asshat.

Kind may find his next campaign a little daunting.



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Dorian Soran
 



And some people are so stupid they actually thought the campaign promises made by Barry would be followed through on, such as openness and transparency


Compare this president with presidents from the last 30 years and see how he stacks up. I think he has been quite open comparatively. Now whether or not Congress (another branch separate from the executive branch) has been transparent, that is entirely different.


I couldn't have said it better myself, you shouldn't be discussing politics at all, at least until you take off your rose colored barry glasses.


Rose colored Barry glasses? How droll and absurd.



Thanks for the time - at least your slanted post made me chuckle. And just so you know I don't 'lean' one way or the other like SOME people on here, wait for my republicrap thread I have been working on. It goes all the way back to Reagan. We just need to see politics for what it is. The same side of a one sided coin


Slanted maybe, but what people complain about as far as transparency goes is congress not being transparent. They are the ones in closed door meetings. When people blame the president for congresses actions it makes me want to puke, because half of the people that complain about what this government does don't vote at all, most of the other half haven't got a clue how our government is run to begin with.

Millions Of Missing Bush Emails Found

Obamas plan to release 400 million classified pages

Obama orders creation of declassification center

Just three examples of how the Obama administration has been more transparent than other administrations. But no, let's kick the guy because he is the president. Why not! Don't have any real facts to back it up, just kick him because it's a fun ATS game! Gets you lots of stars when you badmouth the president, gets you loads of respect, you don't even have to have any facts to support it, just throw it out there and you get lots of "I agree posts."

Here is a guy that has helped conspiracy theorists more than the last 4 presidents combined, and what thanks does he get in return?



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 



The administrations of the last 30 years do not play a role in how transparent the current administration is. What matters is here and now.

The president will eventually sign or not sign the bills presented to him by congress. So yes, transparency does pertain to congress. Unless, of course, you are saying our current president is a sly and deceitful being who planned things to play out this way.


[edit on 13-1-2010 by Protostellar]



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Protostellar
 



The administrations of the last 30 years do not play a role in how transparent the current administration is. What matters is here and now.


I disagree, look back at the last 4 presidents preceding this one, transparency was not the name of these people's game, this president however has made numerous strides to make light some things that other presidents would not dream of.


The president will eventually sign or not sign the bills presented to him by congress. So yes, transparency does pertain to congress. Unless, of course, you are saying our current president is a sly and deceitful being who planned things to play out this way.


It would be nice if congress was being transparent. Unfortunately the president cannot force them to. If you want someone directly to blame for lack of transparency in Congress, might I suggest Reid and Pellosi?



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


Whatukno you are very correct. It is good to see someone understand that the campaign 'promise' that then candidate Senator Obama made was empty from the start.

As president, he cannot dictate the rules of Congress. People seem to forget the separation of powers that are in place, i.e. Legislative, Executive, and Judicial.

The only downfall I see to this is he was using pre-bully pulpit means to get voted and hasn't followed through on pressuring Congress more. That is all he would be able to do. The president cannot force Congress to allow CSPAN, as much as I would like him to do, to have cameras in proceedings.



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


OBE, is there not laws that disallow the Congress from meeting in private? I could have sworn there were.

And if there are laws that prevent secret meetings, does not the President have the duty and responsibility to call them out for it.

As a matter of fact I KNOW it is illegal for them to meet in secret.

But I guess we should not expect Obama to say anything, since he is JUST the President.

You know, the Executive Branch which enforces the laws. No need for them to enforce any law that ACTUALLY means anything. Better to enforce other laws, I guess.



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by endisnighe
 


It is implied via the Constitution by Article I, Section 5


Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member.

Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal.


So the authority is there to hold proceedings in secret. Do I think Health Care proceedings constitute secret meetings? Absolutely not. My argument is that the President cannot force Congress to do open them up. He can use the bully pulpit and pressure them, but cannot walk into the halls of Congress and demand that they allow CSPAN to have their cameras. Just as Whatukno stated.

EDIT TO ADD LINK: Congressional Authority to Hold Closed Door Meetings

[edit on 13-1-2010 by ownbestenemy]



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


You are right. I let my emotions get the best of me. Your logic is correct. Sometimes it's tough to sort myeslf out. No sarcasm.

The following is not a stab but an observation.

Our president loves to make empty promises, and yes, he has been very open about it. Hence more press meetings than I've ever seen w/ any other president.



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


Thanks OBE, unless deciding war I believe nothing they do should be secret. Anyway, thanks for digging that up.



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


True, he can't force Congress to have CSPAN there. But, when he was calling Democrats into the Oval Office offering bribes, threatening, coeercing, (of course only my speculation), them.......could he have not opened that up to the public? I mean honestly, they could show what happens to those that don't toe the line. Or what it takes to buy a vote......it'd be interesting.



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 04:25 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
Ok, so the president is in charge of Congress? What article is that under in the Constitution?


Some people are so stupid that they actually think that the open and transparent promise would really travel over to our legislative branch. The people that believed that are the same people that get duped by Nigerian scam artists.

Now the white house itself has been quite open and transparent. However, this lot on this board doesn't want to see that because they want to focus on hating the president just to hate the president.

It's sad and pathetic.


When the President promises to post all legislation before he signs it, that does not affect the legislative branch. It is the executive.

Maybe you've forgotten"Sunlight Before Signing:"

“When there is a bill that ends up on my desk as a president, you the public will have five days to look online and find out what’s in it before I sign it, so that you know what your government’s doing.”


Oops.

Maybe you've also forgotten that candidate Obama regularly promised to broadcast all health care negotiations on C-SPAN, putting the entire process of pounding out health care reform out in the open.

He may not be a member of Congress, but your willingness to ignore the broken promises and the power of the "bully pulpit" belie your intention to belittle critics and ignore the bankruptcy of THIS administration's agenda of lies and deceit.

When he fails to do as promised, it makes the "transparency" pledge a lie.

When his Secretary of Treasury advises a TARP recipient NOT to publicly disclose how it will use the taxpayer funds to pay excessive prices for junk assets, that is not "transparency."

When the President promises to exclude lobbyists from his administration, then grants "exemptions" and "exceptions" as he sees fit, that makes the promise a lie. The Whitehouse, not Congress, promised to post all exceptions for appointees and they have not.

That's just for starters.

Deny ignorance.

jw



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by adifferentbreed
 


This is true, I was a bit distracted in addressing the "A" for openness regarding the White House.

I believe it is a delicate balance of openness that whomever holds the presidency must try and maintain. On one hand, I believe it should be public record on who is visiting our leadership and when. On the other, sometimes those matters are sensitive and cannot be placed into a public journal for all to read.

The greatest hypocrisy any president proclaims is that they are for the people, but when is the last time a random cross-section of small business owners has been invited to the White House? Or a small collection of everyday citizens have been invited to present their views?

Only the most powerful and influential get the honors of conferring with the president and that is where ALL presidents get a big fat F.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join