If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Mercury News)   President-Elect Obama pushes for more accessible government. President Bush seen scratching his head in confusion. Is it January yet?   (mercurynews.com) divider line 67
    More: Cool  
•       •       •

824 clicks; posted to Politics » on 13 Dec 2008 at 8:27 PM (5 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



67 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2008-12-13 07:29:16 PM
euroross.blogspot.com
 
2008-12-13 07:35:01 PM
"You mean, like, wheelchairs and stuff?"
 
2008-12-13 07:48:08 PM
No talent? That's probably inaccurate.

No experience? That might have more bite.

It's a bad idea to gift a seat to someone that hasn't one elections previously, oftentimes they end up losing to a better campaigner. Might go double if, say, they aren't a citizen of the state they're being appointed to.
 
2008-12-13 07:48:44 PM
uh, whoops, wrong thread
 
2008-12-13 07:55:51 PM
Accessabilitutinousness?
 
2008-12-13 08:06:43 PM
"to ensure that we give the American people a seat at the table and that we receive the benefit of their feedback,"

yeah... that'll work.

So what is the nearest planet that can potentially support human life ? That may be a good Plan B.
 
2008-12-13 08:30:53 PM
HAHA!

Accessible...but NO questions for Rahm!


/depends on what your definition of 'accessible' is.
 
2008-12-13 08:32:19 PM
Mordant: "to ensure that we give the American people a seat at the table and that we receive the benefit of their feedback,"

yeah... that'll work.

So what is the nearest planet that can potentially support human life ? That may be a good Plan B.


Europa I think If we live under the ice near geothermal vents
 
2008-12-13 08:33:49 PM
When has Bush ever been seen not scratching his head in confusion?
 
2008-12-13 08:43:14 PM
is there anyone who won't be sighing in relief come late Jan?
 
2008-12-13 08:44:34 PM
NYZooMan: HAHA!

Accessible...but NO questions for Rahm!


/depends on what your definition of 'accessible' is.


All this post does is make me think of a toddler throwing a tantrum.
 
2008-12-13 08:51:13 PM
President-Elect Obama pushes for the illusion of more accessible government.
 
2008-12-13 08:52:44 PM
The Numbers: NYZooMan: HAHA!

Accessible...but NO questions for Rahm!


/depends on what your definition of 'accessible' is.

All this post does is make me think of a toddler throwing a tantrum.


Yeah, living with your head in the sand will do that.
 
2008-12-13 08:56:00 PM
NYZooMan: Yeah, living with your head in the sand will do that.

under those circumstances I have to commend you on how well you type.
 
2008-12-13 09:07:35 PM
Mordant: NYZooMan: Yeah, living with your head in the sand will do that.

under those circumstances I have to commend you on how well you type.


Served!

thumbnail.search.aolcdn.com
 
2008-12-13 09:27:11 PM
Accessible government.

Contradiction in terms.

www.moonbattery.com
 
2008-12-13 09:40:25 PM
Aernis: is there anyone who won't be sighing in relief come late Jan?

Past and present administrations have taught me to never ever let my guard down on what's going on with the government, no matter who is in office. I am not holding my breath until I see his actions as president. It'd be nice if he had a history of defending all of the amendments such as the 2nd and 4th for example but time will tell. I don't like the fact that he says he is for "common sense" gun control but does not clearly define what does and does not constitute "common sense" in his view. I also don't like the fact he voted for FISA. However, that's just something to keep an eye on; can't say for sure what he will and will not do as my last Delorean was smashed by a train.
 
2008-12-13 09:43:24 PM
So you mean a politician is finally realizing he works for the people and is making it easier for his employers to judge his performance?

SHOCKING.
 
2008-12-13 09:53:42 PM
Postal Penguin: So you mean a politician is finally realizing he works for the people and is making it easier for his employers to judge his performance?

SHOCKING.


Can we fire him yet?
 
2008-12-13 10:03:36 PM
Postal Penguin
So you mean a politician is finally realizing he works for the people and is making it easier for his employers to judge his performance?


Suppose the current administration set up a web site to share information they wanted you to have. Would that make you happy?

This reminds me of another leader who makes sure the citizens are informed:

i125.photobucket.com
 
2008-12-13 10:07:12 PM
Obama isn't very bright. He probably thinks accessible means you can get into the place in a wheel chair.
www.rushlimbaugh.com
 
2008-12-13 10:20:57 PM
Erebus1954: Obama isn't very bright. He probably thinks accessible means you can get into the place in a wheel chair.

i37.tinypic.com

For starters, check the second post of the thread.

And the watermark on your image.
 
2008-12-13 10:41:26 PM
If some of the posters in this thread are any indication we can't handle the truth(!) and would probably feel better if we just stuck to our preconcieved notions irregardless of any evidence that arises to the contrary. And since a lot of people are planning on doing that anyway the adults can continue their fixing of the country without having to worry about the children not understanding the message, no matter how clear.
 
2008-12-13 10:53:46 PM
Falcc: irregardless

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how one word kills a reasoned argument.
 
2008-12-13 10:57:11 PM
Occam's Chainsaw: Falcc: irregardless

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how one word kills a reasoned argument.


Oh psshaw. Irregardless is a perfectly cromulent word.
 
2008-12-13 11:04:52 PM
♪Oh Rahm Oh Rahm E-ma-a-a-an-uel,♪
♫And with your people ne-e-e-ever tell.♫
 
2008-12-13 11:07:27 PM
Yankees Team Gynecologist: Erebus1954: Obama isn't very bright. He probably thinks accessible means you can get into the place in a wheel chair.



For starters, check the second post of the thread.

And the watermark on your image.

theframeproblem.files.wordpress.com
Oh! My! God! What's the matter, do you have that not so fresh feeling again? You failed the sane way, by being something of douche bag.

Because it's your second time at failing the same way, I'm pulling the intergalactic card. This time your fail is beyond epic, it's the worst fail in the history of the universe.

You are the first ever to achieve true intergalactic FAILURE!!!!!!

Here's where you're going wrong:

Nobody cares but you! It's petty and pointless.
 
2008-12-13 11:14:14 PM
Falcc: Occam's Chainsaw: Falcc: irregardless

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how one word kills a reasoned argument.

Oh psshaw. Irregardless is a perfectly cromulent word.


This is probably what it would be like if the Comic Book Guy from The Simpsons had an English degree.

It's obviously a double negative, but hating on "irregardless" makes you look more or less like an ass since the word has been in common usage for decades. The argument that it's not a real word because it has no antecedents is fairly weak as the English language is ripe with words that fall into this category.

So in summation: Weak sauce guys, weak farking sauce.
 
2008-12-13 11:44:56 PM
Hey, if Obama's actually serious about this, it's one of the most positive signs I've seen for the office of the President in decades.

The first thing that opposed me to Bush was his (or, Cheney's, rather) penchant for secrecy. His has been the most secret Presidency ever. We will NEVER know what really went on behind the scenes.

So anything to make it more transparent is a positive thing, no matter how desperate the serial Obama haters are to minimize it.
 
2008-12-13 11:46:58 PM
Oh, for God's sake...

Just don't say "irregardless" unless you're trying to be funny or ironic. Just don't...

/shakes head
 
2008-12-13 11:51:17 PM
Prospero424: Hey, if Obama's actually serious about this, it's one of the most positive signs I've seen for the office of the President in decades.

The first thing that opposed me to Bush was his (or, Cheney's, rather) penchant for secrecy. His has been the most secret Presidency ever. We will NEVER know what really went on behind the scenes.


So anything to make it more transparent is a positive thing, no matter how desperate the serial Obama haters are to minimize it.



like you would ever know that
 
2008-12-13 11:52:50 PM
hillbillypharmacist: uh, whoops, wrong thread

Wrong thread or not, I still lmao'd.
 
2008-12-13 11:56:33 PM
014789: like you would ever know that

Not sure what you mean, but it's not like I'm the only one who's said this.

Look at the executive orders he's signed sealing Presidential records for perpetuity (they used to be declassified after 50 years). Look at the policies he's set up for access to Presidential Library records. Look at the entire separate residence that was created in almost total secrecy from which the Vice President ran the day-to-day business of the federal government, and the measures they've taken to exclude the office of the Vice President from historical and journalistic scrutiny. Look at the rules they've set up foe electronic communications. Look at the emails they were required by law to keep that hey "misplaced". Look at the documents Cheney was caught shredding in his "home office".

It goes on and on and on. Are you seriously going to argue with me about this?
 
2008-12-13 11:59:20 PM
Prospero424: 014789: like you would ever know that

Not sure what you mean, but it's not like I'm the only one who's said this.

Look at the executive orders he's signed sealing Presidential records for perpetuity (they used to be declassified after 50 years). Look at the policies he's set up for access to Presidential Library records. Look at the entire separate residence that was created in almost total secrecy from which the Vice President ran the day-to-day business of the federal government, and the measures they've taken to exclude the office of the Vice President from historical and journalistic scrutiny. Look at the rules they've set up foe electronic communications. Look at the emails they were required by law to keep that hey "misplaced". Look at the documents Cheney was caught shredding in his "home office".

It goes on and on and on. Are you seriously going to argue with me about this?


yes, there is absolutely no way of ever know which presidency was the "most secret". its absurd to even suggest you know such a thing. makes you look ridiculous really
 
2008-12-14 12:03:24 AM
Erebus1954: Y
Here's where you're going wrong:

Nobody cares but you! It's petty and pointless.


I don't know, as much as I enjoy you falling face first every time you post, it's also fun to watch someone push you down.
 
2008-12-14 12:06:47 AM
014789: yes, there is absolutely no way of ever know which presidency was the "most secret". its absurd to even suggest you know such a thing. makes you look ridiculous really

Sigh.

Do you want to go over a list of secrecy measures this President has taken that are universally recognized to be unprecedented (for ANY President in history) and many times explicitly admitted to be such in the language of the orders and signing statements?

There has never been a Presidency that was more secretive about it's own internal decision making process. I'm not talking about national security (because that depends entirely on the situation), I'm talking about day-to-day affairs of the office of the President.

Denying that the Bush administration has been the most secretive in this regard shows either ignorance, blind naivete, or an absolutely sycophantic level of credulousness.

Take your pick.
 
2008-12-14 12:08:59 AM
014789: yes, there is absolutely no way of ever know which presidency was the "most secret". its absurd to even suggest you know such a thing. makes you look ridiculous really

Agreed, to a point. Time has proven to be a great revealer of secrets. It could be said that after 50, 70, 100 years or so, secrets which aren't taken to the grave cease being strictly secret. Doubly so with something as closely scrutinized as the American presidency. So unless you think a recent president was more secretive than Bush, arguing that he's the most secretive president is a valid position.
 
2008-12-14 12:20:14 AM
Occam's Chainsaw: Agreed, to a point. Time has proven to be a great revealer of secrets. It could be said that after 50, 70, 100 years or so, secrets which aren't taken to the grave cease being strictly secret.

I see what you guys' point is in this regard. We don't have ALL of the records of the early Presidents, for one thing.

But we DO know that no other President, for example, has set up a physically separate shadow government for the Vice President to run political affairs from. We know that no other President has ever ordered the White House records of past Presidents (Reagan, in particular) as well as those of his own Presidency to be sealed indefinitely.

It it possible that some early Presidents were more secretive? I guess. But from the information available to us, George W. Bush has been the most secretive President in history.

Saying "you don't know that for sure" is just a cop-out. From a historical perspective, we don't know anything for sure. That doesn't mean we can't look at the available evidence and recognize what is most likely to be true.

I'm not arguing with you. I'm just trying to make my position clear.
 
2008-12-14 12:23:13 AM
Prospero424: 014789: yes, there is absolutely no way of ever know which presidency was the "most secret". its absurd to even suggest you know such a thing. makes you look ridiculous really

Sigh.

Do you want to go over a list of secrecy measures this President has taken that are universally recognized to be unprecedented (for ANY President in history) and many times explicitly admitted to be such in the language of the orders and signing statements?

There has never been a Presidency that was more secretive about it's own internal decision making process. I'm not talking about national security (because that depends entirely on the situation), I'm talking about day-to-day affairs of the office of the President.

Denying that the Bush administration has been the most secretive in this regard shows either ignorance, blind naivete, or an absolutely sycophantic level of credulousness.

Take your pick.


sigh all you want, nobody knows who has been the most secret. and i'm not even a republican or a bush supporter
 
2008-12-14 12:23:15 AM
Hell, they even tried to claim that Cheney's office wasn't part of ANY branch of government, and therefore wasn't subject to scrutiny!

No President ever had the balls to try something like that before to keep day-to-day government activities from the public.

Giant swinging brass balls...
 
2008-12-14 12:25:07 AM
How tough is it for a President to unseal records that a previous President has sealed?
 
2008-12-14 12:26:44 AM
014789: nobody knows who has been the most secret.

Yeah, and nobody knows that people evolved from apes, either, if you want to play that game.

I just think your standards here are a bit of kilter, that's all. Never said you were a Bush supporter. I just don't think you're aware of everything they've done in this regard.

Bush started this stuff before 9/11. It's the first thing that really pissed me off about his attitude in approaching the Presidency. I've been following it very closely since then.
 
2008-12-14 12:33:15 AM
Argh2: Erebus1954: Y
Here's where you're going wrong:

Nobody cares but you! It's petty and pointless.

I don't know, as much as I enjoy you falling face first every time you post, it's also fun to watch someone push you down.


Argh2: Erebus1954: Y
Here's where you're going wrong:

Nobody cares but you! It's petty and pointless.

I don't know, as much as I enjoy you falling face first every time you post, it's also fun to watch someone push you down.


FAIL!!

I's nice that you are enjoying whatever you think is going on, but here's a news flash for you. I don't care what you think. I don't care if you think every post is a failure. I don't care if you enjoy it.

No one has pushed me down. Why would I care that some juvenile idiot posted a "fail' picture because he didn't like what I said. It's childish. It was probably funny the first 234 times, but it's just stupid and lame now.

I've haven't noticed any of your posts. I'll just leave it at that.
 
2008-12-14 12:33:52 AM
IXI Jim IXI: How tough is it for a President to unseal records that a previous President has sealed?

All it takes is an executive order, from what I understand. But that will require Obama to give up a level of secrecy that he might enjoy. I think most candidates would have taken this "gift" and buried it from public memory. We'll just have to see what Obama does.

Here's a very interesting article on the subject.

"Bush's decree allows former presidents and their heirs to bar the release of documents for almost any reason. It flies in the face of congressional intent and forces our nation's leading historians to take legal action if they want to gain access to documents."
 
2008-12-14 12:35:21 AM
Erebus1954: It's childish.

"Barack Hussein Odumbo" isn't? Heh.
 
2008-12-14 12:35:28 AM
014789:

yes, there is absolutely no way of ever know which presidency was the "most secret". its absurd to even suggest you know such a thing. makes you look ridiculous really


Ok, OK. Aside from the administrations that were so secret we never found out they were secret, this is the most secret.

Jeeze.
 
2008-12-14 12:36:20 AM
Prospero424: 014789: nobody knows who has been the most secret.

Yeah, and nobody knows that people evolved from apes, either, if you want to play that game.

I just think your standards here are a bit of kilter, that's all. Never said you were a Bush supporter. I just don't think you're aware of everything they've done in this regard.

Bush started this stuff before 9/11. It's the first thing that really pissed me off about his attitude in approaching the Presidency. I've been following it very closely since then.


youre coming off as someone who still wants to believe the government is accountable to the people. dont get me wrong i wish it was too, but those days are long gone. and the sad thing is, its the people that let it happen. since nixon the executive branch has been under a microscope, so i dont blame them if they arent 100% open to the people, especially in a time of war. and historically presidents have taken liberties that far exceed anything bush has done in a time of war.
 
2008-12-14 12:39:30 AM
Prospero424: Erebus1954: It's childish.

"Barack Hussein Odumbo" isn't? Heh.


The Bush is chimp joke seemed to quite popular here, so I assumed that was level of intellect that was expected.

Where people complaining about the chimp jokes? Do you find that childish?
 
2008-12-14 12:40:47 AM
Erebus1954: Argh2: Erebus1954: Y
Here's where you're going wrong:

Nobody cares but you! It's petty and pointless.

I don't know, as much as I enjoy you falling face first every time you post, it's also fun to watch someone push you down.

Argh2: Erebus1954: Y
Here's where you're going wrong:

Nobody cares but you! It's petty and pointless.

I don't know, as much as I enjoy you falling face first every time you post, it's also fun to watch someone push you down.

FAIL!!

I's nice that you are enjoying whatever you think is going on, but here's a news flash for you. I don't care what you think. I don't care if you think every post is a failure. I don't care if you enjoy it.

No one has pushed me down. Why would I care that some juvenile idiot posted a "fail' picture because he didn't like what I said. It's childish. It was probably funny the first 234 times, but it's just stupid and lame now.

I've haven't noticed any of your posts. I'll just leave it at that.


*SIGH*. And so you FAIL again. The point of my post was simply that someone cared besides YTG. Whether you care what I think is irrelevant, as are all your posts.
 
2008-12-14 12:43:53 AM
014789: youre coming off as someone who still wants to believe the government is accountable to the people. dont get me wrong i wish it was too, but those days are long gone.

I still think we have mechanisms to enforce accountability, yes. Maybe we have fewer than we used to, but that's no reason to lay back and let them nullify what remains.

014789: and the sad thing is, its the people that let it happen.

Yup. Our direct representatives in Congress have been facilitators for expanding executive power for almost a century. It's disgraceful.

014789: since nixon the executive branch has been under a microscope, so i dont blame them if they arent 100% open to the people, especially in a time of war. and historically presidents have taken liberties that far exceed anything bush has done in a time of war.

As I said: I'm not talking about national security matters. I treat that as an entirely separate subject for exactly the reasons you mention.

Can you imagine if we had tapes of the Bush/Cheney White House with the level of candor that we had from Nixon? I think it would have been an entirely different Presidency if he had known that what he did behind the scenes would eventually be entirely open to public scrutiny. I mentioned 50 years, but others have talked about opening them after 20.

What makes me really curious is that Bush I AND II were so eager to keep Reagan's White House records sealed. I wonder what they're hiding.

Probably waiting for some complicit party (in Iran-Contra or whatever) to die in order to avoid disgracing them...
 
Displayed 50 of 67 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report