Boom Switch
Footballguy
He has managed to exceed all my expectations of him sucking, he has skeellzz... 
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Your opinion on the job that President Obama is doing so far (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter tommyboy
- Start date
Phil Elliott
Footballguy
I have never understood this. But then I never thought Reagan was the great communicator either.
Obama's Promise of Government Transparency Is a Farce
As the "most transparent administration in history" shields more operations in secrecy, it's worth asking, What is it so afraid of?
Gene Healy | June 26, 2012
In April 2010, when President Barack Obama's then-White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs announced that "this is the most transparent administration in the history of our country," Politico reported that "laughter broke out in the briefing room."
For those of us with a mordant sense of humor, the Obama administration's record on transparency is comedy gold. In his letter last week formally requesting that President Obama invoke executive privilege in the Fast and Furious scandal, Attorney General Eric Holder fretted that turning over documents sought by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee raised "substantial separation of powers concerns" and could "create an imbalance in the relationship between these two co-equal branches of government."
"Co-equal branches"? An "imbalance[d] relationship"? Don't make me laugh. Just last week, the National Security Agency refused to provide Congress with a rough estimate of how many Americans have had their communications monitored by the agency since 2008, on the grounds that revealing that information might violate Americans' privacy. As a result, my colleague Jim Harper lamented, "Congress has no idea what the NSA is doing."
As it happens, the Obama team's executive privilege claim in Fast and Furious is exceptionally flimsy. The president claims "deliberative process privilege," the weakest form of the privilege, about which the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has held "where there is reason to believe the documents sought may shed light on government misconduct, 'the privilege is routinely denied.' "
Still, as offenses go, it's pretty small beer compared to the administration's myriad other abuses of government secrecy privileges.
In its 2011 year-end review of executive branch secrecy, the Electronic Frontier Foundation noted that Obama's Justice Department has refused to release its interpretation of Section 215 of the Patriot Act, compelling production of Americans financial, medical and communications records in security investigations. There's a gap between "what the public thinks the law says and what the American government secretly thinks the law says," amounting to a "Secret Patriot Act," Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., has warned.
Moreover, EFF points out, the administration "refuses to release its legal justification for killing an American citizen abroad without a trial, despite announcing the killing in a press conference." If the president is going to target American citizens for death by drone, shouldn't we at least get to examine, in broad daylight, the legal and constitutional arguments for doing so, so we can know how far they extend?
In passing, EFF noted this little gem, an actual headline from the Wall Street Journal in September: "Anonymous US officials push open government." You can't make this stuff up -- well, maybe you could, but why bother, when the truth is bad enough?
The history of government secrecy privileges shows they're all too often used to cover up government negligence and abuse.
The first Supreme Court case to recognize a limited executive privilege, 1974's U.S. v. Nixon, centered on President Nixon's refusal to produce portions of the Watergate tapes to special prosecutor Leon Jaworski. Showing impeccable comic timing, President Obama made his executive privilege claim on June 20 -- exactly 40 years after the day when a meeting between Nixon and his chief of staff produced the infamous "18 and a half minute gap" in the tapes.
Today, as the self-styled "most transparent administration in history" continues to shield more and more government operations behind a veil of secrecy, it's worth asking, what is it so afraid of?
The day after his inauguration, Barack Obama promised "a new era of openness in government." "Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in government," he said. That sounds terrific; maybe we should try it.
As the "most transparent administration in history" shields more operations in secrecy, it's worth asking, What is it so afraid of?
Gene Healy | June 26, 2012
In April 2010, when President Barack Obama's then-White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs announced that "this is the most transparent administration in the history of our country," Politico reported that "laughter broke out in the briefing room."
For those of us with a mordant sense of humor, the Obama administration's record on transparency is comedy gold. In his letter last week formally requesting that President Obama invoke executive privilege in the Fast and Furious scandal, Attorney General Eric Holder fretted that turning over documents sought by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee raised "substantial separation of powers concerns" and could "create an imbalance in the relationship between these two co-equal branches of government."
"Co-equal branches"? An "imbalance[d] relationship"? Don't make me laugh. Just last week, the National Security Agency refused to provide Congress with a rough estimate of how many Americans have had their communications monitored by the agency since 2008, on the grounds that revealing that information might violate Americans' privacy. As a result, my colleague Jim Harper lamented, "Congress has no idea what the NSA is doing."
As it happens, the Obama team's executive privilege claim in Fast and Furious is exceptionally flimsy. The president claims "deliberative process privilege," the weakest form of the privilege, about which the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has held "where there is reason to believe the documents sought may shed light on government misconduct, 'the privilege is routinely denied.' "
Still, as offenses go, it's pretty small beer compared to the administration's myriad other abuses of government secrecy privileges.
In its 2011 year-end review of executive branch secrecy, the Electronic Frontier Foundation noted that Obama's Justice Department has refused to release its interpretation of Section 215 of the Patriot Act, compelling production of Americans financial, medical and communications records in security investigations. There's a gap between "what the public thinks the law says and what the American government secretly thinks the law says," amounting to a "Secret Patriot Act," Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., has warned.
Moreover, EFF points out, the administration "refuses to release its legal justification for killing an American citizen abroad without a trial, despite announcing the killing in a press conference." If the president is going to target American citizens for death by drone, shouldn't we at least get to examine, in broad daylight, the legal and constitutional arguments for doing so, so we can know how far they extend?
In passing, EFF noted this little gem, an actual headline from the Wall Street Journal in September: "Anonymous US officials push open government." You can't make this stuff up -- well, maybe you could, but why bother, when the truth is bad enough?
The history of government secrecy privileges shows they're all too often used to cover up government negligence and abuse.
The first Supreme Court case to recognize a limited executive privilege, 1974's U.S. v. Nixon, centered on President Nixon's refusal to produce portions of the Watergate tapes to special prosecutor Leon Jaworski. Showing impeccable comic timing, President Obama made his executive privilege claim on June 20 -- exactly 40 years after the day when a meeting between Nixon and his chief of staff produced the infamous "18 and a half minute gap" in the tapes.
Today, as the self-styled "most transparent administration in history" continues to shield more and more government operations behind a veil of secrecy, it's worth asking, what is it so afraid of?
The day after his inauguration, Barack Obama promised "a new era of openness in government." "Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in government," he said. That sounds terrific; maybe we should try it.
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
NCAA Football playoffs. ☑
Affordable (Health)Care Act. ☑
Affordable (Health)Care Act. ☑
Most Transparent Administration Ever?
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
updated
The Commish
Footballguy
This is my largest disappointment actually. I know I'm going to get screwed, is me being allowed to watch too much to ask?
ffldrew
Footballguy
Just curious - which President holds that title now? Van Buren?
Harrison?
STEADYMOBBIN 22
Footballguy
Bueller?
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
Probably. Part of it is policy, but part of it is also the Obama administration making use of technology to get more info to more people about the gov't than any administration in history.
The Commish
Footballguy
What new avenues have been put in place exactly?
flapgreen
Footballguy
The Obama supporters blame more on others than anyone I've ever seen. So tired of hearing that excuse while the economy stinks. Obama is more charismatic than anyone in the goverment and always knows the right thing to say at the right time. That's his biggest asset. The voters love hearing it. It's a foregone conclusion that he will be reelected. Sad, really...
Last edited by a moderator:
BeaverCleaver
Footballguy
Wow...if the voters love hearing what he has to say why is he in danger of not getting reelected? It is so far from a foregone conclusion that he will be reelected that you need a reality check. Sad, really....
BeaverCleaver
Footballguy
'tommyGunZ said:
NJDawgPound
Footballguy
Nixon but not by his choice.
The Commish
Footballguy
bump
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
The record still leaves a lot to be desired, but the Obama administration has been making steps in the right direction:
ETA: Economist Link
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish
Footballguy
Curious...have you been to these sites? I have.
ren hoek
Footballguy
you get out of here with these verifiable facts
The Commish
Footballguy
If you can jump through the hoops that Obama assassinated someone, perhaps? I suspect American citizens are probably assassinated all the time in covert CIA/FBI "intelligence" arenas. We just never hear about them for obvious reasons. I'm not sure any of them were 16 though. Hard to answer this one honestly.
Politician Spock
Footballguy
Fixed it for you.
Todd Andrews
Footballguy
Right off the top of my head:Most troops out of Iraq?
Most Al Qaeda vaporized?
Single largest increase in DOW under any President in history (definitely gross and possibly percentage increase as well)?
pittstownkiller
Footballguy
Wow, I think all of these are a reach.
Todd Andrews
Footballguy
Of course you do. But you also probably think Noah had a T Rex on the Ark in 3812 BC.
Fensalk
Footballguy
Managed to get the mainstream media to STOP reporting soldier death counts in Iraq and Afghanistan the moment he assumed office. This is a significant accomplishment because the press was constantly reporting on it while Bush was in office to drag his office down. He got them to stop so voters weren't as upset about the war. Actually reporting about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan pretty much stopped when Obama got in.
pittstownkiller
Footballguy
Don't be a fool, he had to have two.
Todd Andrews
Footballguy
Sorry, forgot that obvious necessity.
Todd Andrews
Footballguy
Um, no the "mainstream media" didnt STOP reporting soldier death counts. That just isnt true. But what is true is that the American people had such war fatigue that they dont want to hear about the wars and the mainstream media is profit driven and stopped trying to give us what we dont want.
Anthony Borbely
Footballguy
There is no difference whatsoever in how the war is reported now compared to when Bush was in office.
Fensalk
Footballguy
Absolutely there is. They used to report body counts all the time. They would mark milestone in death counts. Ever since Obama got into office, there's been very little. Its well known that the easiest way to turn the public against a war effort is to report body counts, show images of soldier comes home in body bags, etc. That sort of reporting and imagery is very effective.
BoneYardDog
Footballguy
Grim Milestone: Over Twice as Many U.S. Soldiers Have Died in Afghanistan Under Obama In 3 1/2 Years Than Did Under Bush in 8 Years – Media Silent
Last edited by a moderator:
BeaverCleaver
Footballguy
BorbelyGrim Milestone: Over Twice as Many U.S. Soldiers Have Died in Afghanistan Under Obama In 3 1/2 Years Than Did Under Bush in 8 Years – Media Silent
again
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
Bush oversaw the death of about 5600 in Iraq and Afghanistan over eight years, while essentially ignoring the enemy that attacked us on 9/11.
Obama has overseen the death of roughly 2300 in Iraq and Afghanistan over about four years, while all but destroying Al Qaeda and killing Osama bin Laden.
Maybe the media is silent where you are, but I still see plenty of reports on the war dead. Is it less than Bush? No idea.
But I think the general lack of outrage has something to do with the sense that at least the sacrifice isn't wasted and we're actually killing the right people for the right reasons today. That and fatigue. Ten years is a long time to stay fired up about something that doesn't directly affect your life very often.
Obama has overseen the death of roughly 2300 in Iraq and Afghanistan over about four years, while all but destroying Al Qaeda and killing Osama bin Laden.
Maybe the media is silent where you are, but I still see plenty of reports on the war dead. Is it less than Bush? No idea.
But I think the general lack of outrage has something to do with the sense that at least the sacrifice isn't wasted and we're actually killing the right people for the right reasons today. That and fatigue. Ten years is a long time to stay fired up about something that doesn't directly affect your life very often.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ursa M
Footballguy
Obama's foreign policy and success rate against terrorists is stratospherically better than the previous incumbent's. Furthermore, the wrongheaded Iraq War is at an end and Al Qaeda is in a shambles. The new policy of destroying Al Qaeda and it's offshoots via technological superiority, intelligence and surgical strikes is exactly what is required.
Anthony Borbely
Footballguy
Of course, you conveniently ignored the reason...because Bush took the troops to Iraq and ignored Afghanistan, which was one of the worst military decision ever. You also conveniently left out the number of troops killed in Iraq under both Presidents.Grim Milestone: Over Twice as Many U.S. Soldiers Have Died in Afghanistan Under Obama In 3 1/2 Years Than Did Under Bush in 8 Years – Media Silent
It's easy to spin numbers when you leave out half of the information.
Good spin, though.
Last edited by a moderator:
Todd Andrews
Footballguy
Right, because Obama decided to actually fight in Afghanistan where Al Qaeda attacked us from, instead of Bush who almost immediately after invading decided to take all the linguists and special forces out of Afghanistan, send them to Iraq, almost lose in Iraq until he was forced kicking and screaming to fire Rumsfeld and actually try to win in Iraq......And now Obama is wrapping up both messes pretty cleanly.Grim Milestone: Over Twice as Many U.S. Soldiers Have Died in Afghanistan Under Obama In 3 1/2 Years Than Did Under Bush in 8 Years – Media Silent
pittstownkiller
Footballguy
Pretty poor recap here, Todd.
Todd Andrews
Footballguy
Feel free to correct it then.
BoneYardDog
Footballguy
In 2010, influenced by the Tea Party and its focus on fiscal issues, 17 states elected Republican governors. And, according to an Examiner.com analysis, every one of those states saw a drop in their unemployment rates since January of 2011. Furthermore, the average drop in the unemployment rate in these states was 1.35%, compared to the national decline of .9%, which means, according to the analysis, that the job market in these Republican states is improving 50% faster than the national rate.
Since January of 2011, here is how much the unemployment rate declined in each of the 17 states that elected Republican governors in 2010, according to the Examiner:
Kansas - 6.9% to 6.1% = a decline of 0.8%
Maine - 8.0% to 7.4% = a decline of 0.6%
Michigan - 10.9% to 8.5% = a decline of 2.4%
New Mexico - 7.7% to 6.7% = a decline of 1.0%
Oklahoma - 6.2% to 4.8% = a decline of 1.4%
Pennsylvania - 8.0% to 7.4% = a decline of 0.6%
Tennessee - 9.5% to 7.9% = a decline of 1.6%
Wisconsin - 7.7% to 6.8% = a decline of 0.9%
Wyoming - 6.3% to 5.2% = a decline of 1.1%
Alabama - 9.3% to 7.4% = a decline of 1.9%
Georgia - 10.1% to 8.9% = a decline of 1.2%
South Carolina - 10.6% to 9.1% = a decline of 1.5%
South Dakota - 5.0% to 4.3% = a decline of 0.7%
Florida - 10.9% to 8.6% = a decline of 2.3%
Nevada - 13.8% to 11.6% = a decline of 2.2%
Iowa - 6.1% to 5.1% = a decline of 1.0%
Ohio - 9.0% to 7.3% = a decline of 1.7%
On the other hand, the unemployment rate in states that elected Democrats in 2010 dropped, on average, as much as the national rate decline and, in some states such as New York, the unemployment rate has risen since January of 2011.
This is yet another example of how the so-called “blue state” model is not working.
Since January of 2011, here is how much the unemployment rate declined in each of the 17 states that elected Republican governors in 2010, according to the Examiner:
Kansas - 6.9% to 6.1% = a decline of 0.8%
Maine - 8.0% to 7.4% = a decline of 0.6%
Michigan - 10.9% to 8.5% = a decline of 2.4%
New Mexico - 7.7% to 6.7% = a decline of 1.0%
Oklahoma - 6.2% to 4.8% = a decline of 1.4%
Pennsylvania - 8.0% to 7.4% = a decline of 0.6%
Tennessee - 9.5% to 7.9% = a decline of 1.6%
Wisconsin - 7.7% to 6.8% = a decline of 0.9%
Wyoming - 6.3% to 5.2% = a decline of 1.1%
Alabama - 9.3% to 7.4% = a decline of 1.9%
Georgia - 10.1% to 8.9% = a decline of 1.2%
South Carolina - 10.6% to 9.1% = a decline of 1.5%
South Dakota - 5.0% to 4.3% = a decline of 0.7%
Florida - 10.9% to 8.6% = a decline of 2.3%
Nevada - 13.8% to 11.6% = a decline of 2.2%
Iowa - 6.1% to 5.1% = a decline of 1.0%
Ohio - 9.0% to 7.3% = a decline of 1.7%
On the other hand, the unemployment rate in states that elected Democrats in 2010 dropped, on average, as much as the national rate decline and, in some states such as New York, the unemployment rate has risen since January of 2011.
This is yet another example of how the so-called “blue state” model is not working.
BoneYardDog
Footballguy
Todd Andrews
Footballguy
You know something kind of interesting? A lot of those states you listed take more from the federal government than they pay in, making them essentially welfare states leeching off the "blue states" whose model is not working according to you.And just to be clear, you blame the Republican governor of Nevada for the 11.6% unemployment rate there and the GOP governor of South Carolina for the 9.1% unemployment rate there and the Republican governor of Georgia for the 8.9% interest rate there, etc? Good to know.
Fensalk
Footballguy
I don't see why I should accept this premise. How do "they" determine how much those "welfare" states are contributing to the federal government? It sounds like a democratic talking point which immediately leads me to think they are lying somewhere to get those numbers. I did see one article about it that actually listed Ohio as a democratic state to help make its point, which was stupid. Ohio is a swing state.my first question is:When they total the amount of dollars going from the state to the federal government, are they just talking tax revenue from individuals? Or businesses as well?
