RE: Journalists are turing against Obama (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


Staleek -> RE: Journalists are turing against Obama (8/13/2015 6:44:50 AM)

quote:


Wake up America! You are already living in a non democratic police state where microchipping, false flag operations and dirty tricks have overpowered the few good men trying to fight oppression. The police are out of control (see black murder by police statistics) race hatred is rife and endemic/institutionalised. Once the government has invoked martial law they will take your guns and you will be powerless in a country that has no freedom of speech movement or rights to protest.


The modern American; the most oppressed demographic in the history of the world.

That aside, I am not sure what you think your little guns will do against the US military, what with tanks, ships, aircraft, infrastructure, and everything else. Although the US military has been shown to be less than competent at dealing with insurgencies and ground operations they should still be able to win a war against US militias. "Taking our guns" isn't necessary or even desirable IF this was an actual objective - out of control guns on the streets of the USA is a problem for which there would be a robust and immediate government intervention anywhere else.




Zonie63 -> RE: Journalists are turing against Obama (8/13/2015 6:47:00 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

I'm a bit curious as to why journalists waited this long to demand transparency in government...

Eh? They've been doing it for at least six fucking years...

Transparency Watch: A Closed Door
White House reporters afraid to criticize the White House
President Obama's muddy transparency record
The Obama Administration and the Press
Where the Sun Don’t Shine

K.




The letter in question enjoined Obama to "shift the federal government away from secrecy." Even if they've been doing it for six years, that still begs the question as to why they weren't doing it back in the 1940s and 50s. Why should they hold Obama to a standard which they haven't yet held any other President to?




Kirata -> RE: Journalists are turing against Obama (8/13/2015 7:06:06 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

The letter in question enjoined Obama to "shift the federal government away from secrecy." Even if they've been doing it for six years, that still begs the question as to why they weren't doing it back in the 1940s and 50s. Why should they hold Obama to a standard which they haven't yet held any other President to?

Be serious. The world has changed. With the advent of the Internet things spread far and fast. Information is harder to control, and it is brought together and delivered in ways that just didn't happen before. Distrust of the government has been growing since the Warren Commission, and Obama was elected at least in part because he promised the most transparent administration ever. What happened 10, 20, or 50 years ago isn't good enough anymore.

K.






Lucylastic -> RE: Journalists are turing against Obama (8/13/2015 7:32:36 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

I'm a bit curious as to why journalists waited this long to demand transparency in government...

Eh? They've been doing it for at least six fucking years...

Transparency Watch: A Closed Door
White House reporters afraid to criticize the White House
President Obama's muddy transparency record
The Obama Administration and the Press
Where the Sun Don’t Shine

K.




The letter in question enjoined Obama to "shift the federal government away from secrecy." Even if they've been doing it for six years, that still begs the question as to why they weren't doing it back in the 1940s and 50s. Why should they hold Obama to a standard which they haven't yet held any other President to?


because he did the rookie thing, he thought he could be transparent. He soon found out he couldnt, because there is too much at stake...He ran on transparency nobody will let him forget it...neither should they. But they have very little to say about what he did achieve:)

The reality that he could end the secrets of national secrecy WAS a pipedream, WHat? make government transparent when it used to take 40 years to de classify documentation/ truth/lies. too much power, too much corruption and whitewashed greed.
ANyone who thought that transparency and the US government was likely, is delusional.





Zonie63 -> RE: Journalists are turing against Obama (8/13/2015 8:45:38 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

The letter in question enjoined Obama to "shift the federal government away from secrecy." Even if they've been doing it for six years, that still begs the question as to why they weren't doing it back in the 1940s and 50s. Why should they hold Obama to a standard which they haven't yet held any other President to?

Be serious. The world has changed. With the advent of the Internet things spread far and fast. Information is harder to control, and it is brought together and delivered in ways that just didn't happen before. Distrust of the government has been growing since the Warren Commission, and Obama was elected at least in part because he promised the most transparent administration ever. What happened 10, 20, or 50 years ago isn't good enough anymore.

K.



I am being serious. Very serious, in fact. The culture of secrecy in our government has been addressed and opposed by many over the same time frame, yet the mainstream media has mostly wimped out and accepted it.

I'm not against them calling out Obama or any other government official for failing to promote transparency and the end of secrecy in government. As I said, I'm all for transparency in government.

If it turns out that they're just calling him out for breaking his promise to be the most transparent administration ever, then okay. But that's just all the more reason to question the media's desire for and commitment to a transparent government.

This letter just makes it look like it's the usual political shenanigans, not a sincere desire to promote transparency in government. And yes, Obama does the same exact thing. I call it even.






Zonie63 -> RE: Journalists are turing against Obama (8/13/2015 9:26:38 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
because he did the rookie thing, he thought he could be transparent. He soon found out he couldnt, because there is too much at stake...He ran on transparency nobody will let him forget it...neither should they. But they have very little to say about what he did achieve:)

The reality that he could end the secrets of national secrecy WAS a pipedream, WHat? make government transparent when it used to take 40 years to de classify documentation/ truth/lies. too much power, too much corruption and whitewashed greed.
ANyone who thought that transparency and the US government was likely, is delusional.


I think the desire for transparency is certainly admirable, although expecting any kind of real reform, hope, or change from either a Democrat or a Republican is definitely a pipe dream and a delusion. (Those same delusions are propagated by those very same "professional journalists" on a daily basis, so they're a part of the problem more than the solution.)

Technically, the President does wield a lot of power over the Executive Branch, the military, and the intelligence community - so he has the authority to do more as far as ending the culture of secrecy in government. But if he did that, then I daresay those same journalists who wrote that letter would then skewer him for jeopardizing national security. So, it's one of those "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situations.





CreativeDominant -> RE: Journalists are turing against Obama (8/13/2015 9:36:52 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

I'm a bit curious as to why journalists waited this long to demand transparency in government...

Eh? They've been doing it for at least six fucking years...

Transparency Watch: A Closed Door
White House reporters afraid to criticize the White House
President Obama's muddy transparency record
The Obama Administration and the Press
Where the Sun Don’t Shine

K.




The letter in question enjoined Obama to "shift the federal government away from secrecy." Even if they've been doing it for six years, that still begs the question as to why they weren't doing it back in the 1940s and 50s. [bold]Why should they hold Obama to a standard which they haven't yet held any other President to?[/bold]

Maybe because he's the one that promised that standard, unlike any other President?




Sanity -> RE: Journalists are turing against Obama (8/13/2015 9:43:03 AM)


This doesnt go back past Obama at all.

Everybody is NOT doing it. From National Review Online:

quote:

The Obama Administration’s Newly Political Approach to FOIAs

At the Treasury Department, the memo came down from the deputy executive secretary, Wally Adeyemo, in December of 2009. Going forward, the memo stated, “sensitive information” requested under the Freedom of Information Act was to be reviewed not only by career FOIA officials but also by a committee of political appointees, including Adeyemo and representatives from the public-affairs, legislative-affairs, and general counsel’s office, before release.

What followed was an unusual review of Treasury FOIA requests by high-ranking political officials. And it didn’t just happen at Treasury, but at the IRS and the Department of Homeland Security, too. The Current and former FOIA attorneys at these agencies say documents requested by the media have come in for special scrutiny, called “sensitive review,” often holding up release for weeks or months. At times, these officials say, political officials delayed the production of documents for political convenience. The Wall Street Journal has chronicled how Hillary Clinton’s top aides at the State Department scrutinized FOIA requests and learned to write memos in a fashion that would avoid disclosure.

These actions run counter not just to the spirit and the letter of the Obama administration’s pledge to unprecedented transparency, but also to the spirit of the Freedom of Information Act itself.

The behavior is part of a series of revelations about how the Obama administration has failed to live up to its lofty promises of openness and worked to avoid disclosure to the public. The media has made its dissatisfaction clear: A July 2014 letter signed by dozens of journalists’ organizations chronicled their complaints and called on the president to be more transparent. “The stifling of free expression is happening despite your pledge on your first day in office to bring ‘a new era of openness’ to federal government — and the subsequent executive orders and directives which were supposed to bring such openness about,” the letter said.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/419500/obama-administrations-newly-political-approach-foias-eliana-johnson




Zonie63 -> RE: Journalists are turing against Obama (8/13/2015 9:43:24 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

I'm a bit curious as to why journalists waited this long to demand transparency in government...

Eh? They've been doing it for at least six fucking years...

Transparency Watch: A Closed Door
White House reporters afraid to criticize the White House
President Obama's muddy transparency record
The Obama Administration and the Press
Where the Sun Don’t Shine

K.




The letter in question enjoined Obama to "shift the federal government away from secrecy." Even if they've been doing it for six years, that still begs the question as to why they weren't doing it back in the 1940s and 50s. [bold]Why should they hold Obama to a standard which they haven't yet held any other President to?[/bold]

Maybe because he's the one that promised[/bold] that standard, unlike any other President?



So, then, these journalists are just upset over a broken promise from a politician? They never really had any problem with the culture of ultra-secrecy and lack of transparency in government; not back then, not now. But the broken promise - that's what they're truly upset about.




CreativeDominant -> RE: Journalists are turing against Obama (8/13/2015 9:44:50 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

Yes, Obama has been a disappointment but I still give Bush the edge. To wit:

In the years after 9/11, the Bush administration embraced a series of policies, including torture, surveillance of private communications, and restrictions on the writ of habeas corpus, that undermined the fundamental American values of individual dignity, personal privacy and due process of law. Its most dangerous policy, though, was its attempt to hide its decisions from the American public.

In an effort to evade the constraints of separation of powers, judicial review, checks and balances and democratic accountability, the Bush administration systematically hid its actions from public view. It promulgated its policies in secret, denied information to Congress, abused the process for classifying information, narrowly interpreted the Freedom of Information Act, punished government whistle-blowers, jailed journalists for refusing to disclose confidential sources, threatened to prosecute the press for revealing secret programs, and broadly invoked the state secrets doctrine to prevent both Congress and the courts from evaluating the lawfulness of its programs.

Now of course, I feel for both of them although Bush less, because presidents do what they need to do...to stay alive.

Ahhhh...another Bush-bashing. Should have known some good leftist would get one in.

The problem you have though is this...Bush did NOT promise less secrecy and more transparency in government, Obama did. So when you try to compare the two, you're comparing one who didn't follow through on a promise he NEVER made to one who didn't follow through on a promise he DID make.

As Lucy said, it was a silly promise to make. Maybe even sillier to believe. But who believed it? The liberal press and many of his base.




Kirata -> RE: Journalists are turing against Obama (8/13/2015 9:55:37 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

So, then, these journalists are just upset over a broken promise from a politician? They never really had any problem with the culture of ultra-secrecy and lack of transparency in government; not back then, not now. But the broken promise - that's what they're truly upset about.

You can't get upset over something you didn't know was going on. A lot has come out since Eisenhower's time, and a lot has changed since then too. I just don't understand the point of asking why they "weren't doing it" back in the 1950s.

K.





Zonie63 -> RE: Journalists are turing against Obama (8/13/2015 9:56:26 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity
This doesnt go back past Obama at all.

Everybody is NOT doing it.


Actually, it's been going on for a lot longer. It's not even really a legitimate partisan political issue, since both parties are equally guilty and equally to blame for promoting and fostering a culture of ultra-secrecy in government.

That politicians break promises is a fact of life. That politicians play hardball against each other is another fact of life. I understand the arguments, but to try to present it as anything other than the usual politically-motivated bullshit would just not be an accurate picture of what's going on.

I'm no fan of Obama. But I'm also no fan of the "professional journalists" who shed crocodile tears.




Sanity -> RE: Journalists are turing against Obama (8/13/2015 9:59:33 AM)


Comparing Mr Hope and Change campaigning against everything Bush, then becoming worse than Bush after the elections, with the original Bush - and claiming that everything is fine because... Uhh...

Why is everything fine again




Zonie63 -> RE: Journalists are turing against Obama (8/13/2015 10:07:49 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

So, then, these journalists are just upset over a broken promise from a politician? They never really had any problem with the culture of ultra-secrecy and lack of transparency in government; not back then, not now. But the broken promise - that's what they're truly upset about.

You can't get upset over something you didn't know was going on. A lot has come out since Eisenhower's time, and a lot has changed since then too. I just don't understand the point of asking why they "weren't doing it" back in the 1950s.

K.




It's a question of their credibility and motives for even bringing it up in the first place. Am I to interpret this document as a principled and righteously-motivated stance against governmental secrecy and a lack of transparency as a general philosophy to be practiced consistently and evenly with all government agencies and political parties? Or is this just something directed solely at Obama, and if so, does this mean they would discard this principle when the next President takes office?





Sanity -> RE: Journalists are turing against Obama (8/13/2015 10:11:28 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

Actually, it's been going on for a lot longer. It's not even really a legitimate partisan political issue, since both parties are equally guilty and equally to blame for promoting and fostering a culture of ultra-secrecy in government.

That politicians break promises is a fact of life. That politicians play hardball against each other is another fact of life. I understand the arguments, but to try to present it as anything other than the usual politically-motivated bullshit would just not be an accurate picture of what's going on.

I'm no fan of Obama. But I'm also no fan of the "professional journalists" who shed crocodile tears.


Would you agree that Barack Obamas campaign was based on trust, more than everything?

Fixing whats wrong with politics and government today? Hope that you can believe in, real change?

His violating those pledges should make you angry because I am sure you bought into all of his lies

He used you like Bill Cosby uses a stewardess




Sanity -> RE: Journalists are turing against Obama (8/13/2015 10:23:09 AM)


FR

Did someone mention journalists vs. ​Nix, er, Obama

From the Washington Post, with video:

quote:

Homeland Security targeted me, asked intrusive questions



James O’Keefe releases undercover video showing his interactions with DHS(9:22)

Conservative journalist James O'Keefe released a surreptitiously recorded video in an attempt to prove that he is being targeted by the Department of Homeland Security after he wore an Osama bin Laden costume and snuck across the U.S. border to Mexico and then back into Texas in August 2014. (Project Veritas)

Conservative journalist James O’Keefe, known for targeting liberal groups and Democratic politicians, says he is now the one being targeted — by the Department of Homeland Security.

It all started in August 2014 when O’Keefe donned green fatigues and an Osama bin Laden costume and sneaked across the U.S. border to Mexico and then back into Texas, a stunt cited by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) during congressional hearings. His point, O’Keefe said in an interview Wednesday, was to “show that our elected officials were lying to the American people” by saying the border is secure.

But he may have messed with the wrong bureaucrats, since the powerful DHS — the third-largest Cabinet department — controls border security. Ever since, O’Keefe says, he has been stopped and questioned at length by U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers each of the five times he has tried to reenter the United States. The questions, he says have been overly intrusive, covering everything from his business operations and what his next investigative project will be to his political views.

“It is our contention that this is retaliation for our journalism along the Mexican border,” O’Keefe said. “It’s troubling that they are doing this to a citizen reporter…. These questions have nothing to do with national security or border issues or smuggling narcotics into the country. They are questions that they would never ask a Washington Post reporter, that they would never ask NBC News.”

To buttress his claims, O’Keefe is doing what he does best: releasing a surreptitiously recorded video. The nine-minute, 16-second production provides hints that DHS was not pleased by O’Keefe’s bin Laden venture, but reveals no clear evidence that the agency is targeting him.

At one point, a Customs and Border Protection officer at the Montreal airport is heard asking O’Keefe on July 14: “Maybe you’ve passed the border before in a disguise? Or dressed as someone else? You’ve done that kind of stuff before?”

“So are they retaliating against me?” O’Keefe asks.

The officer firmly denies it. “No, we’re not retaliating against you? Why would you say that?” he says.

At another point, however, a different Customs and Border Protection officer tells O’Keefe that agency officials had put a “hit on you” to avoid getting “egg on their face, basically.”

The video does show, however, officers asking O’Keefe a series of detailed questions about his business model, how his company makes money and his political views.

“What’s your next project?” one officer asks.

...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/wp/2015/08/13/conservative-video-maker-james-okeefe-homeland-security-targeted-me-asked-intrusive-questions/




Zonie63 -> RE: Journalists are turing against Obama (8/13/2015 10:39:44 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

Actually, it's been going on for a lot longer. It's not even really a legitimate partisan political issue, since both parties are equally guilty and equally to blame for promoting and fostering a culture of ultra-secrecy in government.

That politicians break promises is a fact of life. That politicians play hardball against each other is another fact of life. I understand the arguments, but to try to present it as anything other than the usual politically-motivated bullshit would just not be an accurate picture of what's going on.

I'm no fan of Obama. But I'm also no fan of the "professional journalists" who shed crocodile tears.


Would you agree that Barack Obamas campaign was based on trust, more than everything?

Fixing whats wrong with politics and government today? Hope that you can believe in, real change?


Nope. I never believed any of that for a second. But I also realize that much of the electorate gets hooked by slogans and inspiring speeches. I can get why the average voter would feel disappointed with Obama, although the problem is that people rely too much on the very same mainstream media which are now complaining about this lack of transparency. So, yes, the public should be blamed for being suckered, but these very same "professional journalists" should also be blamed for acting as political shills.

quote:


His violating those pledges should make you angry because I am sure you bought into all of his lies

He used you like Bill Cosby uses a stewardess


Me? What does this have to do with me?




BamaD -> RE: Journalists are turing against Obama (8/13/2015 11:14:23 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

The letter in question enjoined Obama to "shift the federal government away from secrecy." Even if they've been doing it for six years, that still begs the question as to why they weren't doing it back in the 1940s and 50s. Why should they hold Obama to a standard which they haven't yet held any other President to?

Be serious. The world has changed. With the advent of the Internet things spread far and fast. Information is harder to control, and it is brought together and delivered in ways that just didn't happen before. Distrust of the government has been growing since the Warren Commission, and Obama was elected at least in part because he promised the most transparent administration ever. What happened 10, 20, or 50 years ago isn't good enough anymore.

K.



I am being serious. Very serious, in fact. The culture of secrecy in our government has been addressed and opposed by many over the same time frame, yet the mainstream media has mostly wimped out and accepted it.

I'm not against them calling out Obama or any other government official for failing to promote transparency and the end of secrecy in government. As I said, I'm all for transparency in government.

If it turns out that they're just calling him out for breaking his promise to be the most transparent administration ever, then okay. But that's just all the more reason to question the media's desire for and commitment to a transparent government.

This letter just makes it look like it's the usual political shenanigans, not a sincere desire to promote transparency in government. And yes, Obama does the same exact thing. I call it even.




Last line of defense for Kool Aid drinkers. OJ rule.
It is too late to stop this 50 years ago, unless you are Doc Brown, that doesn't mean we shouldn't stop it now.




BamaD -> RE: Journalists are turing against Obama (8/13/2015 11:15:56 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

I'm a bit curious as to why journalists waited this long to demand transparency in government...

Eh? They've been doing it for at least six fucking years...

Transparency Watch: A Closed Door
White House reporters afraid to criticize the White House
President Obama's muddy transparency record
The Obama Administration and the Press
Where the Sun Don’t Shine

K.




The letter in question enjoined Obama to "shift the federal government away from secrecy." Even if they've been doing it for six years, that still begs the question as to why they weren't doing it back in the 1940s and 50s. [bold]Why should they hold Obama to a standard which they haven't yet held any other President to?[/bold]

Maybe because he's the one that promised that standard, unlike any other President?


Wrong, Clinton made the same promise.




Zonie63 -> RE: Journalists are turing against Obama (8/13/2015 11:21:59 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

The letter in question enjoined Obama to "shift the federal government away from secrecy." Even if they've been doing it for six years, that still begs the question as to why they weren't doing it back in the 1940s and 50s. Why should they hold Obama to a standard which they haven't yet held any other President to?

Be serious. The world has changed. With the advent of the Internet things spread far and fast. Information is harder to control, and it is brought together and delivered in ways that just didn't happen before. Distrust of the government has been growing since the Warren Commission, and Obama was elected at least in part because he promised the most transparent administration ever. What happened 10, 20, or 50 years ago isn't good enough anymore.

K.



I am being serious. Very serious, in fact. The culture of secrecy in our government has been addressed and opposed by many over the same time frame, yet the mainstream media has mostly wimped out and accepted it.

I'm not against them calling out Obama or any other government official for failing to promote transparency and the end of secrecy in government. As I said, I'm all for transparency in government.

If it turns out that they're just calling him out for breaking his promise to be the most transparent administration ever, then okay. But that's just all the more reason to question the media's desire for and commitment to a transparent government.

This letter just makes it look like it's the usual political shenanigans, not a sincere desire to promote transparency in government. And yes, Obama does the same exact thing. I call it even.




Last line of defense for Kool Aid drinkers. OJ rule.
It is too late to stop this 50 years ago, unless you are Doc Brown, that doesn't mean we shouldn't stop it now.


Did I say we shouldn't try to stop it now?




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.078125