• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Transparency in the White House

Wrangor said:
Glad to see other people finally calling Obama out for the sellout that he is.

Been saying that he is George W. Bush version 2.0 for 4 years now. He campaigned as the anti-W, and he has become his doppelganger.
Click to expand...

Well he's definitely not to the level of Bush but this is a disappointing departure from his stance before ascending to the presidency.
 
WakeandBake said:
So ITT we're holding our elected officials to the letter of what they promised on the campaign trial?
Click to expand...

No, it's an issue of massive proportions whether he made any promises about it or not. That's just insult added to injury.
 
RacerDeac said:
1) Policies against transparency are what makes government distant from the people. He's setting the pace, not keeping the pace. And that pace is accelerating.

2) Rather than being willing to call him out on refusing to turn the ship around after he made it one of his biggest talking points as a Senator and POTUS nominee, you're defense is that "he's only continuing to fuck the American people at the expected pace"?
Click to expand...

I didn't think it was a defense. I hate lack of transparency. You hate Obama. Guess it is perspective.

You haven't shown any evidence of "acceleration." You're exaggerating. Obama's doing the same ugly lack of transparency stuff that is going on at all levels of government.
 
PhDeac said:
I didn't think it was a defense. I hate lack of transparency. You hate Obama. Guess it is perspective.
Click to expand...

I don't hate Obama. Again, a straw man. How many can you beat up in one thread?

PhDeac said:
You haven't shown any evidence of "acceleration." You're exaggerating. Obama's doing the same ugly lack of transparency stuff that is going on at all levels of government.
Click to expand...

Ok, you've got me. Accelerating is a subjective term, though there's plenty of evidence to support it. If I say he's the least transparent since Nixon (as supported by at least one study and multiple articles from even more liberal news sources...many claim least transparent EVER), does that now make you feel better about what he's accomplished on the topic? For someone who's not defending, you bring up the "Obama is just like everyone else" argument a lot, while ignoring that he's the President of the United States and that his actions influence what's going on "at all levels of government." You're making him the victim in this when he's actually the victimizer.
 
RacerDeac said:
No, it's an issue of massive proportions whether he made any promises about it or not. That's just insult added to injury.
Click to expand...

sure it is.

But the point I think is that you believed a candidate's campaign promise and are upset now that he didn't achieve it.

I like Obama the man. Not wild about Obama the President. I think Campaign Obama really believed that what he promised, and I think he really wanted to do just that. I think he learned some tough lessons as President - mainly that he was not skilled enough to pull off all the lofty things he wanted to do (and proposed).
 
RacerDeac said:
I don't hate Obama. Again, a straw man. How many can you beat up in one thread?



Ok, you've got me. Accelerating is a subjective term, though there's plenty of evidence to support it. If I say he's the least transparent since Nixon (as supported by at least one study and multiple articles from even more liberal news sources...many claim least transparent EVER), does that now make you feel better about what he's accomplished on the topic? For someone who's not defending, you bring up the "Obama is just like everyone else" argument a lot, while ignoring that he's the President of the United States and that his actions influence what's going on "at all levels of government." You're making him the victim in this when he's actually the victimizer.
Click to expand...

So when we're blaming Rick Scott for lack of transparency in Tallahassee or the City of Ferguson for lack of transparency, I should be blaming Obama instead? C'mon man.

There's not one name or party behind protecting power. As I've posted before Obama and I'll post after, you will never see the Executive Branch give up power.
 
at least he was transparent about when he would pull out the troops in the middle of a war. so that's cool. Couldn't help myself with that one. Really though I agree it is a fallacy to believe that any government will be fully transparent and nor should they to an extent as it relates to national security. But it is such a slippery slope I honestly do not know where that line should be drawn. Certainly Obama has gone beyond it. It is just hard to watch no matter what party you identify with.
 
Ph, why did he talk about it so much in 2008? Naivete?
 
TownieDeac said:
Ph, why did he talk about it so much in 2008? Naivete?
Click to expand...

Partly, but mostly because he wanted to contrast with Bush (and Hillary to some extent) in order to get elected.

Whether he was a true believer or not, it's a lot easier to say you're going to be transparent than it is to be transparent or perhaps better stated, force everybody in the Executive Branch to be transparent.

Hell, I'm sure I'm less transparent as a professor than I thought I'd be as an optimistic grad student 11 years ago. POTUS? $10 says he walked into the White House on Day 1 and somebody who has been doing this a long time told him, "Yeah, Mr. President, we're not going to be able to do that and here is why." I gotta think that first day when the President learns where all the bodies are buried is one of the biggest shit your pants moments a person could have.

W got mocked for saying this in his first debate with Kerry, but I never forgot it. Being president is hard work.
 
Last edited:
Deacs89 said:
at least he was transparent about when he would pull out the troops in the middle of a war. so that's cool. Couldn't help myself with that one. Really though I agree it is a fallacy to believe that any government will be fully transparent and nor should they to an extent as it relates to national security. But it is such a slippery slope I honestly do not know where that line should be drawn. Certainly Obama has gone beyond it. It is just hard to watch no matter what party you identify with.
Click to expand...

Definitely agree with this. I struggle with what I want to know and how much I want to know. How much do I trust "freedom of the press" when I don't trust the press?

I definitely think we're on a slippery slope. Racer is trying to claim that slope increased under Obama, but I haven't seen evidence to suggest that.
 
PhDeac said:
I definitely think we're on a slippery slope. Racer is trying to claim that slope increased under Obama, but I haven't seen evidence to suggest that.
Click to expand...

Two issues. Slope length (i.e. this admin is less transparent than any other before it) and slope angle (this admin is decreasing transparency at an increasing rate). I would argue for both. Are you suggesting one or neither have increased?
 
y = mx + b

y = lack of transparency
m = slope
x = time (# of presidency)
b = baseline lack of transparency

You're saying the slope is increasing. I'm asking you for evidence of that.
 
PhDeac said:
So when we're blaming Rick Scott for lack of transparency in Tallahassee or the City of Ferguson for lack of transparency, I should be blaming Obama instead? C'mon man.
Click to expand...

You have an amazing ability to twist words. I believe the increasing lack of transparency at the federal level influences transparency at lower levels of government. I don't blame Obama for Ferguson or any number of lessor examples. There's a gulf between blame and influence that you managed to leap in a single super-man like bound. That said, I believe lack of transparency at the Federal level is far more dangerous with regards to potential consequences than at the local level, thus I'm less concerned about Rick Scott than I am about Barack Obama.

PhDeac said:
There's not one name or party behind protecting power. As I've posted before Obama and I'll post after, you will never see the Executive Branch give up power.
Click to expand...

Again, the "everybody does it" defense for something you're supposedly not defending. That said, we're not talking balance of power here. We're talking transparency. Related, but not the same. There's already a thread about executive/congressional power from what I recall. I guess I'll take the bait though.

Will the executive branch give up power willingly? Unlikely. But that's not the same as constantly claiming new and more powers, or continuing to be less and less transparent to prevent anyone from knowing how you're using those powers. And the fact that Obama suggested he may (in addition to promising more transparency) is a major part of what made him an appealing candidate, and a subsequent failure. My hope is that Congress and the Courts get their shit together and start to claim back some of the power the Executive has taken from them over the last few administrations.
 
Last edited:
PhDeac said:
y = mx + b

y = lack of transparency
m = slope
x = time (# of presidency)
b = baseline lack of transparency

You're saying the slope is increasing. I'm asking you for evidence of that.
Click to expand...

I've already admitted it's an opinion and based on the articles, studies and opinions I've read. I could just as easily ask you for evidence that it's not. We can agree to disagree on the slope. Are you willing to admit that y is the highest it's ever been, even if the excuse is that "everybody's doing it?"
 
Last edited:
RacerDeac said:
I've already admitted it's an opinion and based on the articles, studies and opinions I've read. I could just as easily ask you for evidence that it's not. We can agree to disagree on the slope. Are you willing to admit that y is the highest it's ever been, even if the excuse is that "everybody's doing it?"
Click to expand...

Yes. I've been saying this the whole time. Do you not understand what slope is?
 
Everybody cheats in college football. UNC just got caught.
 
What I find so funny is that ph is completely transparent about who he is in real life and posts a bunch of stupid shit on this message board and is still employed.

I also find it funny that racer is transparent about wanting to fight lectro in real life yet racer still hasn't gotten his ass kicked by lectro
 
PhDeac said:
Partly, but mostly because he wanted to contrast with Bush (and Hillary to some extent) in order to get elected.

Whether he was a true believer or not, it's a lot easier to say you're going to be transparent than it is to be transparent or perhaps better stated, force everybody in the Executive Branch to be transparent.

Hell, I'm sure I'm less transparent as a professor than I thought I'd be as an optimistic grad student 11 years ago. POTUS? $10 says he walked into the White House on Day 1 and somebody who has been doing this a long time told him, "Yeah, Mr. President, we're not going to be able to do that and here is why." I gotta think that first day when the President learns where all the bodies are buried is one of the biggest shit your pants moments a person could have.

W got mocked for saying this in his first debate with Kerry, but I never forgot it. Being president is hard work.
Click to expand...

But that is where his lack of any relevant experience was important. There is a reason that other people didn't promise what he promised, because they knew they couldn't deliver anything close to what he was saying. Now whether on his part that came from his naivete, outright lies, or just plain stupidity, he duped people to vote him into the highest position in the world based on those misstatements.
Nobody expects politicians to be completely honest or trustworthy, but to be such a polar opposite of his purported proclamations is really a textbook lesson in the long con on his part.
 
Why would PH become unemployed because of posts on a message board that aren't threatening death or something?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top