Reasoned Debate

[Quantum Windbag]

I disagree. I think it is crucial that he have private communications with some people, for many reasons. Obviously when the topic is some illegal, unethical or shady operation then investigators have the right to examine those communications. But honest debate cannot take place in any administration where the possibility of public scrutiny is always present.

Discussion of military operations should be made pulblic?
Real time? If not, then how long after?

Since you both made essentially the same point, I will respond to you both in one post.

There is a difference between things that are legitimately secret and private communications. The president cannot claim that his discussions with the military are private, even if he can claim they are secret. If he is acting in his office as the president he cannot argue that the communication is private.

This doesnt answer the questions I asked.

It actually does if you think about it. If you want a specific answer as to when something that is classified should be declassified, the only answer I can give is "it depends." The need to keep the Normandy invasion secret evaporated as soon as it began, the need to keep the specific details of how to build a nuclear bomb still remains today.

 

[Avatar4321]

To be fully 'fair and balanced'

Politifact: Republicans More Dishonest Than Democrats » Dispatches from the Culture Wars

That seems to sum it up!

You do know that since the chart in question is not based on EVERY statement made by both sides during the time period, there is selection bias at play?

Meaningless chart is meaningless.

You mean context matters? who knew?

 

[flacaltenn]

One basic question is, How can Obama both invoke Executive Privelege to cover communications AND claim there were no communications? Either there were communications on the matter or there weren't.

The second question is why libs deflect to: Republicans lie more. Boosh! Cheney! And other red herrings. We aren't discussing those things. We are discussing the actions of this president. There doesn't need to be "proof" here. There needs to be reasonable inference. The reasonable inference of a claim of EP is that there is communication to be covered. The reasonable inference of the WH saying there was no communication is that there is no need for EP. The reasonable inference of the WH claiming both things simulataneously is that someone is lying about one of those things.

The question is, do the president's enemies get to sort through all his communications in the Oval Office?

Doesn't matter if they are sorting through everything because he says there was "no" communication or some communication. The issue is, do the president's enemies get to go through all his communications on whatever ground they can think up next?

Executive Privilege says, no, they don't. That's private. I agree.

The president should not have private communications in his official duties, end of discussion.

Sorry old bud.. I disagree. If the govt insists on COMPETING with Corporate America or tossing money into massive technology bets -- THEN they need to know what's cooking in those areas. They need to get into each others pants to "coordinate" a national plan..

Now I know neither you or me THINKS this should be required. If Obama had HAD secret conversations with some of those solar companies, he might have learned what a sham some of those "innovations" were. In a BETTER Fed structure, the govt wouldn't be picking winners and losers. Then we would agree.

I don't WANT an energy policy where current energy producers aren't probed for confidential information. Or a Medical system where current BIG hospitals and BIG insurers aren't asked for numbers and statistics. Do YOU?

 

[Billo_Really]

Unless C_Clayton_Jones is your sock this post was not meant for you.

I realize that! That's why I edited it down to the specific comment I wanted to respond to, because it deals with an issue I have a particular interest in. Hypocrites. I hate'em. I don't like conservatives who gave Bush a pass and criticize Obama at every turn. I also don't like liberals who criticized Bush and look the other way regarding Obama's transgressions.

I highly respect conservatives who can speak up against the extremists in their party. I myself, have argued with many liberals on this very board over the same issues I go to war with the neocon's on. I like straight shooters. I don't like people who make a big deal about Obama's EP use, but didn't say anything about Bush's EP use, which was just as bad.

That said, at least one Republican has admitted he didn't have a problem when Bush did some of the things that Obama has been doing, and flat out said that the reason for that is that he trusted Bush and doesn't trust Obama.

Did he say why he trusted Bush? Or what exactly did Bush do to gain that trust?

Let's not forget, many on the right were criticizing Obama less than 10 days after the innaugaration in his first term. Now think about that. What can a President do, any President, in his first 10 days in office, that's worthy of countrywide protests? That right there shows a lot of this criticism is just made up BS. But don't get me wrong, Obama is no angel. He's not a liberal either.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The question is, do the president's enemies get to sort through all his communications in the Oval Office?

Doesn't matter if they are sorting through everything because he says there was "no" communication or some communication. The issue is, do the president's enemies get to go through all his communications on whatever ground they can think up next?

Executive Privilege says, no, they don't. That's private. I agree.

The president should not have private communications in his official duties, end of discussion.

Sorry old bud.. I disagree. If the govt insists on COMPETING with Corporate America or tossing money into massive technology bets -- THEN they need to know what's cooking in those areas. They need to get into each others pants to "coordinate" a national plan..

Now I know neither you or me THINKS this should be required. If Obama had HAD secret conversations with some of those solar companies, he might have learned what a sham some of those "innovations" were. In a BETTER Fed structure, the govt wouldn't be picking winners and losers. Then we would agree.

I don't WANT an energy policy where current energy producers aren't probed for confidential information. Or a Medical system where current BIG hospitals and BIG insurers aren't asked for numbers and statistics. Do YOU?

What on Earth makes you think companies give the government confidential information in order to get loans? The loan applications are a matter of public record, and they contain absolutely no propitiatory information.

Even if they did, that would not give the president a right to claim the communications are private if he heard it as part of his official duties. The companies, on the other hand, could invoke that privacy, and ask the government not to release the information.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Unless C_Clayton_Jones is your sock this post was not meant for you.

I realize that! That's why I edited it down to the specific comment I wanted to respond to, because it deals with an issue I have a particular interest in. Hypocrites. I hate'em. I don't like conservatives who gave Bush a pass and criticize Obama at every turn. I also don't like liberals who criticized Bush and look the other way regarding Obama's transgressions.

I highly respect conservatives who can speak up against the extremists in their party. I myself, have argued with many liberals on this very board over the same issues I go to war with the neocon's on. I like straight shooters. I don't like people who make a big deal about Obama's EP use, but didn't say anything about Bush's EP use, which was just as bad.

That said, at least one Republican has admitted he didn't have a problem when Bush did some of the things that Obama has been doing, and flat out said that the reason for that is that he trusted Bush and doesn't trust Obama.

Did he say why he trusted Bush? Or what exactly did Bush do to gain that trust?

Let's not forget, many on the right were criticizing Obama less than 10 days after the innaugaration in his first term. Now think about that. What can a President do, any President, in his first 10 days in office, that's worthy of countrywide protests? That right there shows a lot of this criticism is just made up BS. But don't get me wrong, Obama is no angel. He's not a liberal either.

If you want to know what he said, here is the story where I read the quote. I was working from memory, so I got it a bit wrong, but I did get the essence.

Republican Senator Admits to Flip-Flopping on NSA Because He Trusted Bush More Than Obama - Hit & Run : Reason.com

I am not a member of either party, and have never voted for a member of either party in a national, or even state wide, election. I have on the local level, but it works out about half for each party, if I remember correctly.

I had problems with parts of the PATRIOT Act when it passed, and thought other parts where a good idea. The problem is that no one wants to get rid of the bad parts, so I have been forced to take a stand against the whole thing, and then hope we can work on the good parts separately.

As for what a president can do in the first 10 days, Obama used his first radio address on day 5 of his presidency to urge passage of the stimulus plan that I thought was a boondoggle before he backed it. He also issued 3 EOs on day 10 that heavily favored unions, one of which placed the burden of enforcing posting the new rules on the prime contractor of any federal contract.

Does it make me a hypocrite that I can actually point to things he did in his official capacity in his first 10 days?

 

[Avatar4321]

I realize that! That's why I edited it down to the specific comment I wanted to respond to, because it deals with an issue I have a particular interest in. Hypocrites. I hate'em. I don't like conservatives who gave Bush a pass and criticize Obama at every turn. I also don't like liberals who criticized Bush and look the other way regarding Obama's transgressions.

How do you know they are hypocrites? They could simply have learned from being out of power the abuses power can bring. People can learn (Thank the Creator)

Take the NSA spying. Perhaps they were unaware of how much the Bush administration did or thought they were focused solely on terrorists, or just realized how intrusive government can be now.

I highly respect conservatives who can speak up against the extremists in their party. I myself, have argued with many liberals on this very board over the same issues I go to war with the neocon's on. I like straight shooters. I don't like people who make a big deal about Obama's EP use, but didn't say anything about Bush's EP use, which was just as bad.

That's not how most people work. I wish it was. It would be much easier if people were just honest about their beliefs instead of lying about their agenda.

Let's not forget, many on the right were criticizing Obama less than 10 days after the innaugaration in his first term. Now think about that. What can a President do, any President, in his first 10 days in office, that's worthy of countrywide protests? That right there shows a lot of this criticism is just made up BS. But don't get me wrong, Obama is no angel. He's not a liberal either.

Lots of things. He could say incredibly stupid things. He could be advocating really bad policy that he is going to try to put in place. He could win a nobel peace prize for doing absolutely nothing.

No alot of the criticism is not BS. People have legitimate problems with the man. The past 5 years of bad policy prove that.

And he is a progressive marxist.

 

[Billo_Really]

If you want to know what he said, here is the story where I read the quote. I was working from memory, so I got it a bit wrong, but I did get the essence.

Republican Senator Admits to Flip-Flopping on NSA Because He Trusted Bush More Than Obama - Hit & Run : Reason.com

I am not a member of either party, and have never voted for a member of either party in a national, or even state wide, election. I have on the local level, but it works out about half for each party, if I remember correctly.

I had problems with parts of the PATRIOT Act when it passed, and thought other parts where a good idea. The problem is that no one wants to get rid of the bad parts, so I have been forced to take a stand against the whole thing, and then hope we can work on the good parts separately.

I've never supported the Patriot Act and I never will.

As for what a president can do in the first 10 days, Obama used his first radio address on day 5 of his presidency to urge passage of the stimulus plan that I thought was a boondoggle before he backed it. He also issued 3 EOs on day 10 that heavily favored unions, one of which placed the burden of enforcing posting the new rules on the prime contractor of any federal contract.

Does it make me a hypocrite that I can actually point to things he did in his official capacity in his first 10 days?

Only if you can't point to 3 things Bush did in his first 10 days in office.

BTW, that was pretty good! You're the first person I've seen who has actually stated specific examples of what Obama did in his first 10 days that you objected too. Most start rattling off these rehearsed mantra's that make no sense at all.

If only more righties would follow your example...

 

[Billo_Really]

How do you know they are hypocrites? They could simply have learned from being out of power the abuses power can bring. People can learn (Thank the Creator)

Yes they can. But when they go into this "Blame Bush" mantra, I wonder if they really have? Bush should be blamed for the things he was responsible for. Obama should be blamed for the things he's responsible for.

Take the NSA spying. Perhaps they were unaware of how much the Bush administration did or thought they were focused solely on terrorists, or just realized how intrusive government can be now.

Bush was pretty bad on the warrantless-wiretapping, but Obama has taken it to a whole other level. On this subject, he's far worse than Bush.

That's not how most people work. I wish it was. It would be much easier if people were just honest about their beliefs instead of lying about their agenda.

I don't say anything behind anyone's back, I wouldn't say to their face.

Lots of things. He could say incredibly stupid things. He could be advocating really bad policy that he is going to try to put in place. He could win a nobel peace prize for doing absolutely nothing.

Yeah, but we're talking about significant actions in office that would provoke a country-wide protest. In the first 10 days in office, a President is still doing his meet n' greet. He may sign a few bills, but certainly no major policy decisions are made in that time. The only President who made a major policy decision in his first days in office, was Truman.

No alot of the criticism is not BS. People have legitimate problems with the man. The past 5 years of bad policy prove that.

I agree.

And he is a progressive marxist.

I disagree. He's not a progressive and I don't think anyone in government (on either side) is a marxist.

 

[midcan5]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/science-and-technology/299118-what-you-really-believe-that.html

"We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." Anais Nin

 

[flacaltenn]

The president should not have private communications in his official duties, end of discussion.

Sorry old bud.. I disagree. If the govt insists on COMPETING with Corporate America or tossing money into massive technology bets -- THEN they need to know what's cooking in those areas. They need to get into each others pants to "coordinate" a national plan..

Now I know neither you or me THINKS this should be required. If Obama had HAD secret conversations with some of those solar companies, he might have learned what a sham some of those "innovations" were. In a BETTER Fed structure, the govt wouldn't be picking winners and losers. Then we would agree.

I don't WANT an energy policy where current energy producers aren't probed for confidential information. Or a Medical system where current BIG hospitals and BIG insurers aren't asked for numbers and statistics. Do YOU?

What on Earth makes you think companies give the government confidential information in order to get loans? The loan applications are a matter of public record, and they contain absolutely no propitiatory information.

Even if they did, that would not give the president a right to claim the communications are private if he heard it as part of his official duties. The companies, on the other hand, could invoke that privacy, and ask the government not to release the information.

Not to "write loans".. That's what happens AFTER the Exec FORMULATES a public policy in an area he/she shouldn't be messing with.. The exec drives Energy policy at 4 different agencies. They all wait breathlessly for a plan and direction --- AND THEN the loans and tax breaks and subsidies happen.. So all the information trading occurs (or should occur) before that general policy direction is written out...

When ADULTS were in charge --- that's when the Exec had their secret meetings. Hilliary with HealthCare and Cheney with Energy. Those are the 2 in the public sniperscope. But in reality --- IN A FUNCTIONAL admin, it's a requirement..

Now with Obama, feelings and "winging it" and arrogance means he doesn't NEED no stinking "background" or what the experts in the field are telling him.. The stark DIFFERENCE should be obvious.

And I claim the dysfunction of this Admin is largely due to AVOIDING the secret flirting with the market and industry..