Obama is the new nixon- all glory to manifold, blessed be his name, for noticing

[Baruch Menachem]

Hoping for your recovery, Foxbots.

Translation: "I can't handle a black president." 180 degrees, 100% wrong. NBPP: IDIOCY< dittohead. Change the channel...

are you this stupid in real life?

He does not have a real life. He is a badly mangled PHP script. Humans can speak an identifiable language with some sort of grammar.

 

[Bill O'Olberman]

Regardless, good for the ACLU.

That one must be a little hard for most conservatives to say... but, yeah, the Obama administration has long since lost any claim of being more transparent.

 

[Si modo]

Hoping for your recovery, Foxbots.

Translation: "I can't handle a black president." 180 degrees, 100% wrong. NBPP: IDIOCY< dittohead. Change the channel...

are you this stupid in real life?

Stop quoting him!!!

You're defeating my ignore function.

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."
President John Fitzgerald Kennedy


Goodnight dittoheads- How old are you people to make this comparison? 12?

Engrish?

 

[del]

apparently, he thinks that it's just fine to lie when it suits his purposes.

hope and change, change and hope, i am not a crook.

"There are two problems with the Obama proposal to allow federal officials to affirmatively assert that a requested document doesn't exist when it does. First, by not citing a specific exemption allowed under the FOIA as grounds for denying a request, the proposal would cut off a requestor from appealing to the courts. By thus creating an area of federal activity that is completely exempt from judicial review, the proposal undercuts due process and other constitutional protections. Second, by creating a justification for government lying to FOIA requestors in one area, a legal precedent is created that sooner or later will be asserted by the government in other areas as well."

Read more at the Washington Examiner: On FOIA, Obama wants a license to lie | Examiner Editorial | Editorials | Washington Examiner

the ACLU and others are fighting this.

let's hope they win.

Obama is trying to help the country. Republicans are trying to bring it down in the hopes it harms him. Republicans - Party first. Everyone else - country first.

yeah, the ACLU and the sunlight foundation are hotbeds of reactionary republicans. hack.

"Reading the proposed rule, it's hard to have any reaction other than the DOJ officials responsible for this proposed rule resent the FOIA, and are doing everything within their power to weaken it. This is utterly contradictory to the President's and Attorney General's public transparency rhetoric.

Presidential rhetoric doesn't get FOIA requests filled, though. Since the DOJ reports directly to the President, we can only interpret this proposal as reflective of the administration's feelings towards FOIA. And if this proposal reflects their feelings, then they can best be summarized as hostile."

Obama&#39;s DOJ Seeks to Weaken the FOIA - Sunlight Foundation

 

[Si modo]

Regardless, good for the ACLU.

That one must be a little hard for most conservatives to say... but, yeah, the Obama administration has long since lost any claim of being more transparent.

Not for me. Sometimes they really piss me off, and sometimes I find them heroic.

They have to protect the higher cause. Rights - of individuals and of The People. If that causes a dickweed to get away with something, then so be it.

 

[del]

Fuck you and the horse you rode in on, coward. LOL

being called a coward by someone behind a keyboard on an anonymous messageboard probably doesn't have the sting you were hoping for, hack.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

are you this stupid in real life?

Stop quoting him!!!

You're defeating my ignore function.

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."
President John Fitzgerald Kennedy


Goodnight dittoheads- How old are you people to make this comparison? 12?

Engrish?

Aha. So he is a TruthNeverMattersUnlessItIsPartyBeforeCounty's sock.

Still...

Quit Defeating My Ignore Function.

 

[Si modo]

 

[del]

Obama's Department of Justice has proposed a new set of rules for how the agency fills Freedom of Information Act Requests. If adopted, the rules will be a huge step back for transparency. They're worse than you think. The DOJ apparently wants to:

* deny requests that aren't addressed to precisely the correct department (16.3 (a))

* summarily dismiss requests if they deem the wording too vague (16.3 (c))

* automatically apply exclusions to FOIA whenever it can (16.4 (a))

* be able to hide what part of the agency is responsible for filling requests (16.4 (e))

* reset their deadlines for responses any time they refer requests among departments (16.5 (a))

* make it more difficult for requests to be deemed urgent (16.5 (e))

* insulate department heads from having to stand by denials (16.6 (d))

* lie, and claim records do not exist, when they do (16.6 (f))

* remove the ability for the courts to oversee how DOJ applies some exclusions (16.6 (f))

* make it easier for businesses to declare that information is a trade secret (16.7)

* be able to destroy records that might be responsive to FOIA requests (16.9)

* ignore your request for information to be given in a specified format (16.9(a)(3))

* disqualify most schools from getting FOIA fees waived (16.9(a)(4))

* exclude new media from getting fees waived (16.10(a)(6))

* make it easier to deny fee waivers (16.10(k)(2)(iii)


doesn't sound very transparent to me.

 

[Ropey]

DOJ proposal could erode FOIA access | Iowa Independent

 

[Si modo]

DOJ proposal could erode FOIA access | Iowa Independent

The DOJ is on my personal shit list.

 

[Ropey]

DOJ proposal could erode FOIA access | Iowa Independent

The DOJ is on my personal shit list.

From my Canadian eyes they are one of the reasons why the legislation of the US should move slow. They are now a tool. They had their own authority once. That was usurped quite some time ago. Now it's a catch as catch can, dismiss as many of those other party appointed affiliates as you can, stack the board and assemblies and let's have at 'er.

Tough politics you Americans have. Regardless of the President.

 

[Si modo]

DOJ proposal could erode FOIA access | Iowa Independent

The DOJ is on my personal shit list.

From my Canadian eyes they are one of the reasons why the legislation of the US should move slow. They are now a tool. They had their own authority once. That was usurped quite some time ago. Now it's a catch as catch can, dismiss as many of those other party appointed affiliates as you can, stack the board and assemblies and let's have at 'er.

Tough politics you Americans have. Regardless of the President.

Agreed.

The DOJ used to be something worthy of respect.

Not anymore. And, it didn't start with this administration, but damned if they aren't taking it to an entirely new level.

 

[Ropey]

The DOJ is on my personal shit list.

From my Canadian eyes they are one of the reasons why the legislation of the US should move slow. They are now a tool. They had their own authority once. That was usurped quite some time ago. Now it's a catch as catch can, dismiss as many of those other party appointed affiliates as you can, stack the board and assemblies and let's have at 'er.

Tough politics you Americans have. Regardless of the President.

Agreed.

The DOJ used to be something worthy of respect.

Not anymore. And, it didn't start with this administration, but damned if they aren't taking it to an entirely new level.

Slick Willie Clinton was pretty good at this manipulation as well. Republicans do the act and then make the law fit it. They get called out more and basically give the finger. I like them mostly for that as I can relate to the mindset.

 

[Kiki Cannoli]

Some of the changes seem resource constraint driven. Such as denying requests for specific formatting and requiring forms Are properly and completely filled out. and why not charge everybody?

I willacknowledge that some are questionable, I'd say half are process change born of necessity.

 

[Si modo]

Some of the changes seem resource constraint driven. Such as denying requests for specific formatting and requiring forms Are properly and completely filled out. and why not charge everybody?

I willacknowledge that some are questionable, I'd say half are process change born of necessity.

Half?

 

[del]

Some of the changes seem resource constraint driven. Such as denying requests for specific formatting and requiring forms Are properly and completely filled out. and why not charge everybody?

I willacknowledge that some are questionable, I'd say half are process change born of necessity.

what part of lying do you consider to be born of necessity?

how is the process enhanced thereby?

 

[Sallow]

Nixon? I thought you guys thought he was Hitler..wait..no Carter..wait no Bush..

Make up your minds..sheesh.

 

[Kiki Cannoli]

Some of the changes seem resource constraint driven. Such as denying requests for specific formatting and requiring forms Are properly and completely filled out. and why not charge everybody?

I willacknowledge that some are questionable, I'd say half are process change born of necessity.

what part of lying do you consider to be born of necessity?

how is the process enhanced thereby?

Hey now, I don't condone all the changes. SI Modo is laughing at half, so I'll downgrade to some.

 

[del]

Nixon? I thought you guys thought he was Hitler..wait..no Carter..wait no Bush..

Make up your minds..sheesh.

i've compared him to bush because his term has been little more than an extension of bush's. i've never compared any pol to hitler, but thanks for playing

it's good to know you're okay with a govt that directly promotes lying to the american people as a response to FOIA requests, as long as a dem is the one in power.

hack