cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Wed 29 Apr, 2009 10:29 am
@okie,
okie wrote:
Quote:
Honesty and transparency, no pork, the list is long, and Obama simply is not honest and transparent, not at all, and the pork business is a bait and switch, all a matter of terminology, he always explains it away. I am looking at a broad range of issues, the economic policy is nonsensical, his energy policy is non-existent, and they have no realistic chance of achieving what he has claimed.


Please show us evidence of these charges against Obama?
Honesty.
Transparancy.
No pork (the bait and switch).
The list is long.
Nonsensical economic policy.
Energy policy is non-existent.
No realistic chance to achieving what he claimed.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  3  
Wed 29 Apr, 2009 10:31 am
@okie,
I didn't explain anything away.

I only pointed to the strawman that was used instead of what couldn't be explained away. I would not defend the Lilly Ledbetter bill as being an emergency bill. However the omnibus spending bill certainly could be argued as one.

Instead of dealing with the specific issue of posting of bills before signing them you now introduce a red herring by pointing to "a tax evader running the IRS."

Your choice of words brings up another point. Are you willing to point to everyone that may owe back taxes for some mistake on their return as a "tax evader"?
Quote:
Gov. Sarah Palin must pay back taxes on nearly $18,000 in expenses she charged the state for living in her home outside Anchorage instead of at the state capital, officials said Wednesday.


I don't think Geithner or Palin are guilty of anything other than making a mistake on their taxes. It was probably innocent on both their parts. The tax code is complicated after all.
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Wed 29 Apr, 2009 10:35 am
@parados,
It's so complicated, no two tax accountants (CPAs) can arrive at the same tax liability from the same client when there are some complications of interpretation of the tax laws.
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Wed 29 Apr, 2009 10:39 am
@cicerone imposter,



Just another reason to adopt The FairTax plan as soon as possible.
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Wed 29 Apr, 2009 10:42 am
@H2O MAN,
And when are 'you' planning to get that through congress? ROFL
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Wed 29 Apr, 2009 10:50 am
@cicerone imposter,

cice knows nothing about The FairTax plan or how to get it adopted.

0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  2  
Wed 29 Apr, 2009 11:05 am
@okie,
Well, okie, here's how I see it: the United States have a very long track record of treating waterboarding as torture. That includes courts-martial of American soldiers who used that technique during the Spanish-American War, it includes the prosecutions of Japanese who waterboarded American soldiers by the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal, and it includes Ronald Reagan’s Justice Department prosecuting a sheriff and some deputies for waterboarding prisoners.

The Bush administration instituted a secret program using exactly the same technique that American courts, for over a hundred years, have treated as torture.

This seems as clear-cut as it can get.

I simply don't see how trying to justify a secret torture program, run by the United States of America, does not constitute "equivocating, justifying, and spinning, till the cows come home."
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Wed 29 Apr, 2009 11:17 am
@old europe,
The cows already came home and left again.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Wed 29 Apr, 2009 12:38 pm
http://www.athenswater.com/images/recovery-Tshirt.jpg
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Wed 29 Apr, 2009 12:42 pm
@H2O MAN,
Ooops, I knew you had no brain, but missing your head explains it all.
Below viewing threshold (view)
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Wed 29 Apr, 2009 06:34 pm
@okie,
Don't confuse pathetic intelligence bashing for actually knowing what caliber of attorney runs for office or accepts appointments to an administration. We have a judicial branch for lawyers. Lawyers shouldn't be making laws, they should be mediating the law, either fairly or unfairly, legally or extra-legally -- if illegally, they need to be prosecuted themselves. In legislating laws, their talent naturally goes into building in loopholes depending on the influence of their real customers -- the lobbyists.
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Wed 29 Apr, 2009 07:05 pm
Did yall watch President Obama's news conference? I thought he did quite well.
dyslexia
 
  1  
Wed 29 Apr, 2009 07:21 pm
@realjohnboy,
agree
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Wed 29 Apr, 2009 08:09 pm
@realjohnboy,
Yeah, did you get the feeling that Obama hid stuff or was he "transparent?"
okie claims Obama lied about having a transparent administration.

What did he hide?
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Wed 29 Apr, 2009 08:12 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Unlike the sixteen-year-old who was in that office for eight years, Obama makes an effort to choose his words so that they will not be misinterpreted. He's not 100% successful but GWB had only a 4 out of 10 in that regard and I'm being generous.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Wed 29 Apr, 2009 08:19 pm
@Lightwizard,
I hear you. I just wanted to show why okie's posts on these threads are worthless, ignorant, opinions without much to support them.

All one needs to do is visit the Obama/Biden white house site to get answers on most things this administration hopes to accomplish. That's about as transparent as any administration can be (unlike the previous administration that hid many of their crimes, and even lied about them).
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Wed 29 Apr, 2009 08:22 pm
@cicerone imposter,
He never said he would have a 100% transparent administration because that's not possible once you're in office. He stated he would have the most transparent and he's certainly doing better than the secretive, paranoid former administration. There has to be transparency trade-off in any administration. Too much transparency may make the government more accountable, because the public can learn the rationale behind policy. Cheney, especially, went beyond the fray into the realm of Big Brother. Less transparency should allow for more wide-ranging and honest deliberations, which can lead to better policy. It's the game of politics -- wake up and smell the coffee or admit you know nothing about the oxymoron of political science and don't realize it's more of an art than anything else.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Wed 29 Apr, 2009 08:42 pm
@Lightwizard,
If Obama's past transparancy is a peek into the future of how Obama will handle problems big and small, I feel very comfortable about the necessity of keeping some things under wraps for security reasons. However, when it comes to the major issues facing the Obama administration, he's been very transparent in how he's been establishing initiatives in his administration; he's open to getting opinions from all sides before he decides what to do. This is a huge change from the Bush regime where most of his advisers were afraid to speak out for fear of losing their jobs.

It's really refreshing and provides me with a level of comfort now with Obama I've not felt during the eight years of Bush's tenure.

Even Cheney's secret meeting with the heads of the big oil companies were kept top secret from the public.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Wed 29 Apr, 2009 08:48 pm
@cicerone imposter,
From tomdispatch.com:

Quote:
posted July 20, 2006 2:27 pm
Tomgram: Karen Greenberg on Bush's Redacted Reality


Imagine a government in which the names of those who worked as key aides in the office of the second (if not, arguably, the first) most important official in the country were not available. Oh gosh, there is such a government -- and it's ours. Journalist Robert Dreyfuss set out to do a report for the American Prospect magazine on the various individuals Vice President Cheney had gathered to help him run the most powerful vice-presidency in American history -- functionally, his own shadow National Security Council -- and when he called, asking for those names and their positions as well as possible interviews with them, here's what ensued:

"His press people seem shocked that a reporter would even ask for an interview with the staff. The blanket answer is no -- nobody is available. Amazingly, the vice president's office flatly refuses to even disclose who works there, or what their titles are. ‘We just don't give out that kind of information,' says Jennifer Mayfield, another of Cheney's ‘angels.' She won't say who is on staff, or what they do? No, she insists. ‘It's just not something we talk about.' The notoriously silent OVP [Office of the Vice President] staff rebuffs not just pesky reporters but even innocuous database researchers from companies like Carroll Publishing, which puts out the quarterly Federal Directory. ‘They're tight-lipped about the kind of information they put out,' says Albert Ruffin, senior editor at Carroll, who fumes that Cheney's office doesn't bother returning his calls when he's updating the limited information he manages to collect."

We're talking, of course, about the official to whom no major media outlet assigns a regular reporter, because the Veep's office releases, with great determination, no news to cover. Dick Cheney is, in this way, the poster boy for the Bush administration's most essential "sunshine" policy -- if at all possible, offer nothing to anyone, any time, anywhere, for any reason.

Such examples of Bush administration secrecy can be multiplied more or less in the direction of the infinite. Stories of information suppression of all sorts are legion, but sometimes one image is worth a thousand examples of what's being kept from us. In this case, the image comes from Karen J. Greenberg, co-editor of The Torture Papers: The Road to Abu Ghraib, who follows the endless stream of investigations and reports that have come from inside the U.S. government and the military in response to the plethora of scandals about torture, abuse, mistreatment, kidnapping, secret prisons, and the like. Tom
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 1240
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 3.8 seconds on 11/25/2024 at 12:48:54