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.

(Washington Post)   Most transparent administration in history is increasingly getting sued over its lack of transparency   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 87
    More: Dumbass, public records, executive agencies, government procurement, WNYC  
•       •       •

1071 clicks; posted to Politics » on 16 Aug 2014 at 1:51 PM (6 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



87 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-08-16 11:19:54 AM
Nice one Subby.
 
2014-08-16 11:22:33 AM
I really don't see him getting the nomination.
 
2014-08-16 12:27:47 PM
President Christie will fix this.
 
2014-08-16 12:45:59 PM
i.chzbgr.com
 
2014-08-16 01:29:20 PM
Just because someone sues doesn't mean they're right.
 
2014-08-16 01:59:05 PM
And yet he still seems like the most ethical and sane GOP option for President.
 
2014-08-16 01:59:52 PM
Y'all do realize you can be the "most X" and still not be "perfectly X" right?

I mean, I don't think that's what's happening here either but I'm just saying that one doesn't equal the other.
 
2014-08-16 02:00:57 PM
Its The People's Republic of New Jersey, this administration is very transparent to the previous ones
 
2014-08-16 02:01:36 PM

LarryDan43: And yet he still seems like the most ethical and sane GOP option for President.


Fixed that for you
 
2014-08-16 02:02:48 PM
Christie lies a lot. Ric Romero reporting.

/inb4 deflection
 
2014-08-16 02:05:45 PM

Benevolent Misanthrope: Just because someone sues doesn't mean they're right.


"This."

www.thedailysheeple.com
 
2014-08-16 02:07:39 PM
Okay, a quick guide to using "most transparent administration" in a title so you won't look like an utter dolt: the article must show at least some area where current administration is noticeably less transparent than any of previous, say, 5 administrations.
 
2014-08-16 02:12:00 PM

dantheman195: LarryDan43: And yet he still seems like the most ethical and sane GOP option for President.

Fixed farked that for you


It was right the first time. 8 years of Hillary will be far better than anything the GOP has to offer.
 
2014-08-16 02:17:59 PM

Grahor: the article must show at least some area where current administration is noticeably less transparent than any of previous, say, 5 administrations.


To be fair, that isn't too hard for the State of New Jersey.
 
2014-08-16 02:18:03 PM
I wonder if there is some metric where this could be measured.
 
2014-08-16 02:20:26 PM

Grahor: Okay, a quick guide to using "most transparent administration" in a title so you won't look like an utter dolt: the article must show at least some area where current administration is noticeably less transparent than any of previous, say, 5 administrations.


lets compare this administration to William Henry Harrison's and see which is most transparent.
 
2014-08-16 02:22:51 PM

Grahor: Okay, a quick guide to using "most transparent administration" in a title so you won't look like an utter dolt: the article must show at least some area where current administration is noticeably less transparent than any of previous, say, 5 administrations.

Those asking for copies of Christie's calendar - a record routinely disclosed by other governors - receive copies of his public event advisories instead of details about his travel and meetings.

The same kinds of requests have been fulfilled routinely over the years. But this time, the state had denied them - at one point citing concerns about compromising media outlets' scoops.



No, it isn't the previous 5 administrations. But it clearly shows a pattern.
 
2014-08-16 02:23:36 PM
Yea, who needs a properly formatted post.
 
2014-08-16 02:39:53 PM

timswar: Y'all do realize you can be the "most X" and still not be "perfectly X" right?

I mean, I don't think that's what's happening here either but I'm just saying that one doesn't equal the other.


Quite true, but really it's all a question of intent. For instance, a politician could announce a policy of recording all official meetings he has with lobbyists, but then start meeting the potentially embarrassing ones at unofficial locations instead so he doesn't have to report who he met. Now, you could defend these actions with your line that his being more transparent about lobbyist meetings (by recording at least some of them) doesn't mean he'll be perfectly transparent (by recording them all) and semantically you'd be absolutely right, but that'd be missing the point. If this politician is only interested in transparency when it suits him and find ways of avoiding it when it doesn't, then he's not truly intent on being 'more transparent' at all and is just interested in the PR bounce he can get from conning the suckers who want to believe in him.
 
2014-08-16 02:45:01 PM

dantheman195: LarryDan43: And yet he still seems like the most ethical and sane GOP option for President.

Fixed that for you


You need to lay off the synthetic weed if you seriously feel this way.
 
2014-08-16 02:45:09 PM

grumpfuff: Those asking for copies of Christie's calendar - a record routinely disclosed by other governors


Okay, in this particular case the headline may be appropriate.
 
2014-08-16 02:46:56 PM
If Christie were to get into the White House, the popcorn munching would be epic as he brings his loveable candidly frank candor to Washington and starts telling everyone, including his own party, that he's tired of a bunch of whining pain in the asses always busting his chops, and discovers in the course of about six weeks that his old stomp-'em-and-stomp-'em-again act doesn't work at all, and he's up at the mike and getting crickets and the flop sweat is sloshing eveverywhere.

/think "Nixon 2.0"
 
2014-08-16 02:53:33 PM
Hey, almost forty years later, Nixon ain't looking so bad. I'd take him over Clinton, Obama, Kerry, Clinton, Dukakis, Bush, Bush 2, Romney, Ryan, Paul, and pretty much everyone else who has ran since.

Watergate wasn't that bad, especially compared to the shiat that goes on today...
 
2014-08-16 03:00:17 PM

grumpyguru: Hey, almost forty years later, Nixon ain't looking so bad. I'd take him over Clinton, Obama, Kerry, Clinton, Dukakis, Bush, Bush 2, Romney, Ryan, Paul, and pretty much everyone else who has ran since.

Watergate wasn't that bad, especially compared to the shiat that goes on today...


I dunno, he did sabotage the Vietnam peace talks so he could get elected...
 
2014-08-16 03:01:15 PM

The Numbers: timswar: Y'all do realize you can be the "most X" and still not be "perfectly X" right?

I mean, I don't think that's what's happening here either but I'm just saying that one doesn't equal the other.

Quite true, but really it's all a question of intent. For instance, a politician could announce a policy of recording all official meetings he has with lobbyists, but then start meeting the potentially embarrassing ones at unofficial locations instead so he doesn't have to report who he met. Now, you could defend these actions with your line that his being more transparent about lobbyist meetings (by recording at least some of them) doesn't mean he'll be perfectly transparent (by recording them all) and semantically you'd be absolutely right, but that'd be missing the point. If this politician is only interested in transparency when it suits him and find ways of avoiding it when it doesn't, then he's not truly intent on being 'more transparent' at all and is just interested in the PR bounce he can get from conning the suckers who want to believe in him.


That's fair, but I do think that if you're going to blast the administration for not living up to the "most transparent administration" goal you should include some evidence of truly transparent administrations in the past. Preferably the modern era but ahy time will do.

I'll wait.

/WHH doesn't count, he didn't have time to have an administration.
 
2014-08-16 03:02:17 PM

Crotchrocket Slim: dantheman195: LarryDan43: And yet he still seems like the most ethical and sane GOP option for President.

Fixed that for you

You need to lay off the synthetic weed if you seriously feel this way.


Christie is number two in my book so far.

I think Clinton is going to walk with it, mostly because after a year of giving the gop both houses public sentiment well be ready for a change.

IMO those are the only two candidates that might actually be a decent president. Anyone else will have leveraged themselves too much to endup with anything else except another lobbyist/political consultant administration like Obama's have been.
 
2014-08-16 03:03:28 PM

grumpyguru: Christie is number two in my book so far.


Can I be so bold as to ask why?
 
2014-08-16 03:04:09 PM

sirbissel: grumpyguru: Hey, almost forty years later, Nixon ain't looking so bad. I'd take him over Clinton, Obama, Kerry, Clinton, Dukakis, Bush, Bush 2, Romney, Ryan, Paul, and pretty much everyone else who has ran since.

Watergate wasn't that bad, especially compared to the shiat that goes on today...

I dunno, he did sabotage the Vietnam peace talks so he could get elected...


Lol, that's it? The American public sabotaged Iraq by forcing Bush into pulling out early.
 
2014-08-16 03:06:57 PM

grumpfuff: grumpyguru: Christie is number two in my book so far.

Can I be so bold as to ask why?


Seems like a set up for toilet humor. We all know Fark is way too classy for that
 
2014-08-16 03:09:08 PM

grumpfuff: grumpyguru: Christie is number two in my book so far.

Can I be so bold as to ask why?


Like I said, from what I've seen, heard, and my very very limited interactions with them (very very limited) and other politicians, I think Christie is much more compromising than any other legitimate GOP candidate.

Plus, for things like presidents, I like knowns. Christie's Christie, he's going to play the same games since politics immemorial.

Which I think is a good thing because while not perfect the pre 9/11 political system was pretty good. Everyone knew the rules and how to play the game.
 
2014-08-16 03:11:14 PM

grumpyguru: Hey, almost forty years later, Nixon ain't looking so bad. I'd take him over Clinton, Obama, Kerry, Clinton, Dukakis, Bush, Bush 2, Romney, Ryan, Paul, and pretty much everyone else who has ran since.

Watergate wasn't that bad, especially compared to the shiat that goes on today...


You sound like quite the history buff.
 
2014-08-16 03:12:50 PM
Oh, Christie. You little rascal.

That's nothing compared to GW Bush. When the shrub left office, his administration destroyed all documents and data in its possession.

But I'm sure that's not because W farked the country royally and committed war crimes.
 
2014-08-16 03:14:35 PM

Tor_Eckman: grumpyguru: Hey, almost forty years later, Nixon ain't looking so bad. I'd take him over Clinton, Obama, Kerry, Clinton, Dukakis, Bush, Bush 2, Romney, Ryan, Paul, and pretty much everyone else who has ran since.

Watergate wasn't that bad, especially compared to the shiat that goes on today...

You sound like quite the history buff.


Oh I'm not, but I know the list of Nixon's foibles as well as anyone. Plus I have the benefit of Wikipedia and assholes like you to remind me if anything I might have forgotten.

That said I still stand by my statement.
 
2014-08-16 03:15:23 PM

ghare: dantheman195: LarryDan43: And yet he still seems like the most ethical and sane GOP option for President.

Fixed farked that for you

It was right the first time. 8 years of Hillary will be far better than anything the GOP has to offer.


I agree.  And that is really. really sad.
 
2014-08-16 03:15:34 PM

grumpyguru: I think Clinton is going to walk with it


Well, at least she won't have a problem raising taxes to pay for her wars.
 
2014-08-16 03:17:16 PM

grumpyguru: Tor_Eckman: grumpyguru: Hey, almost forty years later, Nixon ain't looking so bad. I'd take him over Clinton, Obama, Kerry, Clinton, Dukakis, Bush, Bush 2, Romney, Ryan, Paul, and pretty much everyone else who has ran since.

Watergate wasn't that bad, especially compared to the shiat that goes on today...

You sound like quite the history buff.

Oh I'm not, but I know the list of Nixon's foibles as well as anyone. Plus I have the benefit of Wikipedia and assholes like you to remind me if anything I might have forgotten.

That said I still stand by my statement.


take a midol, dear. take two.
 
2014-08-16 03:19:10 PM

grumpyguru: grumpfuff: grumpyguru: Christie is number two in my book so far.

Can I be so bold as to ask why?

Like I said, from what I've seen, heard, and my very very limited interactions with them (very very limited) and other politicians, I think Christie is much more compromising than any other legitimate GOP candidate.

Plus, for things like presidents, I like knowns. Christie's Christie, he's going to play the same games since politics immemorial.

Which I think is a good thing because while not perfect the pre 9/11 political system was pretty good. Everyone knew the rules and how to play the game.


hahaohwaityoureserious.jpg

The only time Christie has compromised have been times where he would have been seriously hurt in the polls if he hadn't. For farks sake, the man has vetoed bills he said he would sign.
 
2014-08-16 03:20:39 PM

grumpyguru: Tor_Eckman: grumpyguru: Hey, almost forty years later, Nixon ain't looking so bad. I'd take him over Clinton, Obama, Kerry, Clinton, Dukakis, Bush, Bush 2, Romney, Ryan, Paul, and pretty much everyone else who has ran since.

Watergate wasn't that bad, especially compared to the shiat that goes on today...

You sound like quite the history buff.

Oh I'm not, but I know the list of Nixon's foibles as well as anyone. Plus I have the benefit of Wikipedia and assholes like you to remind me if anything I might have forgotten.

That said I still stand by my statement.


You are carrying water for one of the most corrupt and genuinely evil persons to ever hold the office. And yet I'm the asshole?
 
2014-08-16 03:30:46 PM
Condescending sarcastic statements puts anyone at the top of my asshole list. And yeah, sadly, the person who probably was the most corrupt politician in the seventies would probably be one of the ones with the most integrity in this day and age, that's how bad things have gotten.
 
2014-08-16 03:31:52 PM

raerae1980: I really don't see him getting the nomination.


look at the field. ted cruz, rand paul, rick perry, bobby jindal, louie gohmert (ok wanted to see if you were paying attention), sarah palin, steve king, peter king. the list is endless.

except for not wanting the job i'd run. i'd get the "hell no, not hillary" crowd and once past the primary it would be smooth sailing. a bit old for today's voters perhaps but a record of really working with both parties. a left leaning moderate. how could folks not vote for me?
 
2014-08-16 03:35:46 PM
Just to be clear, they're also getting sued Bybee Obstructionist Party for complying with their requests, so I have no more surprise left when it comes to people suing this administration.
 
2014-08-16 03:38:41 PM
I'm a just say this and then I'm off for the day, I gotta cook two meals for 25 people.

But based on what I've read, what I've lived through, and what I learn going forward, I do have a belief that the quality of politicians has greatly degraded since the 60's, adding with society as a whole.

I don't have the means to prove it, but does a study matter when you can find a study that supports pretty much anything you want published online?

All I'm saying is that for the next election I think the best choices are first Clinton then Christie and that pretty much every president since Nixon has been as bad or worse for the country as Nixon, albeit in different ways
 
2014-08-16 03:40:38 PM

Mikey1969: Just to be clear, they're also getting sued Bybee Obstructionist Party for complying with their requests, so I have no more surprise left when it comes to people suing this administration.


* by the, nit 'Bybee'
 
2014-08-16 03:42:24 PM

grumpyguru: Condescending sarcastic statements puts anyone at the top of my asshole list. And yeah, sadly, the person who probably was the most corrupt politician in the seventies would probably be one of the ones with the most integrity in this day and age, that's how bad things have gotten.


No, it hasn't gotten that bad. Nixon's protégés Cheney and Rumsfeld approached their mentor's level of pure evil, but not quite. Other than that you're argument is just plain ridiculous. Maybe you should go read some more Wiki.
 
2014-08-16 03:54:01 PM

grumpyguru: I'm a just say this and then I'm off for the day, I gotta cook two meals for 25 people.

But based on what I've read, what I've lived through, and what I learn going forward, I do have a belief that the quality of politicians has greatly degraded since the 60's, adding with society as a whole.

I don't have the means to prove it, but does a study matter when you can find a study that supports pretty much anything you want published online?

All I'm saying is that for the next election I think the best choices are first Clinton then Christie and that pretty much every president since Nixon has been as bad or worse for the country as Nixon, albeit in different ways


Two meals are gonna to stretch between 25 people?

Are you Jesus? This'll make one hell of an anecdote one day if you are...
 
2014-08-16 03:58:52 PM
As someone whose job it is to defend lawsuits against a government entity, let me assure you that the number of lawsuits filed against a government entity is not necessarily an accurate measure of the entity's performance.
 
2014-08-16 04:10:18 PM

timswar: The Numbers: timswar: Y'all do realize you can be the "most X" and still not be "perfectly X" right?

I mean, I don't think that's what's happening here either but I'm just saying that one doesn't equal the other.

Quite true, but really it's all a question of intent. For instance, a politician could announce a policy of recording all official meetings he has with lobbyists, but then start meeting the potentially embarrassing ones at unofficial locations instead so he doesn't have to report who he met. Now, you could defend these actions with your line that his being more transparent about lobbyist meetings (by recording at least some of them) doesn't mean he'll be perfectly transparent (by recording them all) and semantically you'd be absolutely right, but that'd be missing the point. If this politician is only interested in transparency when it suits him and find ways of avoiding it when it doesn't, then he's not truly intent on being 'more transparent' at all and is just interested in the PR bounce he can get from conning the suckers who want to believe in him.

That's fair, but I do think that if you're going to blast the administration for not living up to the "most transparent administration" goal you should include some evidence of truly transparent administrations in the past. Preferably the modern era but ahy time will do.

I'll wait.

/WHH doesn't count, he didn't have time to have an administration.


Did you miss the point of my post, or is this some kind of cunning plan to get me to call all sides bad so you can accuse me of being a Republican? Being more transparent than other administrations becomes  a moot point if the actual intention of the current administration is avoiding transparency.

When I hear a politician claim they're going to run the 'most transparent administration in history', I interpret this to mean.'I'm going to try and be as transparent as it's possible for me to be, although there'll still be situations where transparency is legitimately inappropriate'. That's my interpretation, YMMV. When I see an administration working toward that standard, then I'll credit them for their transparency - although I suspect I'll be in for a long wait.
 
2014-08-16 04:21:30 PM

Kumana Wanalaia: Oh, Christie. You little rascal.

That's nothing compared to GW Bush. When the shrub left office, his administration destroyed all documents and data in its possession.

But I'm sure that's not because W farked the country royally and committed war crimes.


You got that wrong.  It was when Clinton left office that a bunch of stuff got destroyed or went missing.

Or it could have been both.
 
2014-08-16 04:40:00 PM

OgreMagi: Kumana Wanalaia: Oh, Christie. You little rascal.

That's nothing compared to GW Bush. When the shrub left office, his administration destroyed all documents and data in its possession.

But I'm sure that's not because W farked the country royally and committed war crimes.

You got that wrong.  It was when Clinton left office that a bunch of stuff got destroyed or went missing.

Or it could have been both.


Clinton's people took the W keys off of the keyboards. Bush's people destroyed millions of emails and other documents. It's just a tad bit different.
 
2014-08-16 04:41:34 PM
Why is this so hard to understand? As technology and ideals accelerate, the level of access to a good seems to decrease even as it improves.

Oh, wait. I get it. This is just another bullet in the chamber of the right wing POV. I hope you folks realize that the next Republican president is going to be EVISCERATED, literally eviscerated to his guts. You opened this can of worms.
 
Displayed 50 of 87 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report