bluestateguy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jan-09-10 10:38 PM
Original message |
Can someone name an Administration that has been more transparent than this one? |
IndianaGreen
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jan-09-10 10:39 PM
Response to Original message |
1. I think the word you were searching for was opaque, and not transparent |
boppers
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jan-09-10 11:38 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
14. So, that would be a no, you cannot name one? |
|
You think this administration is more opaque than *'s?
|
IndianaGreen
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jan-10-10 05:23 AM
Response to Reply #14 |
25. Jimmy Carter was far more open than the liars that succeeded him |
|
This Administration is only transparent in its broken promises and deceitfulness.
|
boppers
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-11-10 12:08 AM
Response to Reply #25 |
29. Carter didn't have internet sites, because they didn't exist at current scale. |
|
..so it's not really fair to note that Obama's team has been blogging, building sites about projects, tweeeting, etc. other than to wonder if Carter *would* have done the same. Same with C-SPAN,
What did Carter do, that Obama hasn't done, that was more open?
|
ChairmanAgnostic
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jan-09-10 10:41 PM
Response to Original message |
|
so transparent, that it was almost invisible.
after all, he did win.
|
CakeGrrl
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jan-09-10 10:45 PM
Response to Original message |
3. Unrecs, but no answers. Interesting. n/t |
last1standing
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jan-09-10 10:48 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
5. Yeah, because only one side does that, right? |
CakeGrrl
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jan-09-10 11:01 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
7. You mean compared to your subsequent response to the OP? |
|
:eyes: No bias there!
I do think it's interesting that at the time I posted, the thread was <0 when no one had offered an answer.
|
last1standing
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jan-09-10 11:08 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
9. I provided a real response with a more transparent administration. |
|
You provided nothing but snark about unrecs. Nothing wrong with bias, just bias against people instead of policies. Learn the difference.
|
CakeGrrl
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jan-09-10 11:20 PM
Response to Reply #9 |
|
Now you're just lapsing into lecturing and condescension. Oooh, "learn the difference". Big burn!
I get that a lot of you are pissed off, but insulting me and whomever else crosses your path around here isn't going to solve anything.
And if you think my initial comment was loaded with snark, you're quite ironic. Not to mention pretty darned sensitive.
|
last1standing
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jan-09-10 11:31 PM
Response to Reply #12 |
13. Awww! Did pointing out that you made a personal attack hurt your feelings? |
|
I know you guys have such a "personal bond" with Obama that you think he's family but he really isn't. He's a public official and is therefore fair game for criticism. The posters at DU aren't. You attacked posters, I attacked a public official's record.
Once again, learn the difference.
Or just say "Whatevs" like a petulant teenager. Your choice.
:eyes:
|
CakeGrrl
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jan-10-10 12:10 AM
Response to Reply #13 |
19. Sorry, I won't fall for your fight bait, as hard as you try |
|
And am not going to respond to the tired goading about "you guys" and "personal bonds with Obama". Wouldn't that be an attack on posters by making fun of those who aren't as angry with Obama as you? Hypocrite much?
You need to learn the difference before you overextend yourself to go on the attack. I'm outtie, duuuuude! :rofl:
|
last1standing
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jan-10-10 12:25 AM
Response to Reply #19 |
21. I'm just throwing back your attack. Strange you didn't notice that. |
|
But I'm guessing you're not very perceptive. :shrug:
By the way, I also notice that no one is able to refute my statement that Carter's administration was more transparent than Obama's. Too bad all you could contribute to this thread was snark and personal insults. That kind of makes you look silly.
|
last1standing
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jan-09-10 10:47 PM
Response to Original message |
|
But then he had far less to hide.
|
GreenPartyVoter
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jan-10-10 12:48 AM
Response to Reply #4 |
22. It would not surprise me. Times were different back then, I guess. |
sandnsea
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jan-09-10 11:01 PM
Response to Original message |
6. Why Bush's, clearly, doncha know n/t |
Truth2Tell
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jan-09-10 11:07 PM
Response to Original message |
8. Well, I guess that's good enough then. |
|
As long Obama is even a teeny bit better than than what we had before, that's good enough for me. Why raise the bar to some kind of real standard? "Better than X" is enough.
|
boppers
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jan-09-10 11:41 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
17. Better than *everything* that came before? |
Enrique
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jan-09-10 11:12 PM
Response to Original message |
10. we can't tell until someone tries investigating something |
|
maybe we'll get an idea of Obama's transparency if Congress decides to look into AIG, etc.
|
boppers
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jan-09-10 11:40 PM
Response to Reply #10 |
rhett o rick
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jan-09-10 11:17 PM
Response to Original message |
MannyGoldstein
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jan-09-10 11:40 PM
Response to Original message |
16. Any President Before Dim Son |
|
What, specifically, has Rahmbama been unusually transparent about?
|
Hippo_Tron
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jan-09-10 11:43 PM
Response to Original message |
18. The William Henry Harrison Administration was pretty transparent |
dkf
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jan-10-10 12:11 AM
Response to Original message |
20. Can you name an administration that made transparency a top priority? |
jgraz
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jan-10-10 02:22 AM
Response to Original message |
23. Can someone name an Administration that has been more mauve than this one? |
|
An equally meaningful question.
|
TheKentuckian
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jan-10-10 02:56 AM
Response to Original message |
24. I wish it was secret as The Colonel's recipe if it was less concerned about blowing "stakeholders", |
|
Edited on Sun Jan-10-10 02:57 AM by TheKentuckian
being corporate friendly, fighting "The War on Terror" by going to random places and creating insurgencies (aka know as motherfuckers who weren't thinking shit about you till you popped in to occupy their country and know they want to give you the ole bum's rush) to kill our troops for no real reason, and didn't maintain an unconstitutional army of the Executive.
More secrets and less kinder, gentler, hipper Poppy would be fine with me.
Sorry to be snarky, it's a good thing and definitely part of what I was voting for but I'd assume be more disappointed here and happier about getting a leash on the corporate communist coming for our last nickles so they can gamble them and win big or make us pay the bookie if things don't work out.
|
boppers
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-11-10 12:11 AM
Response to Reply #24 |
30. I'm sorry, but I didn't understand this: |
|
"Sorry to be snarky, it's a good thing and definitely part of what I was voting for but I'd assume be more disappointed here and happier about getting a leash on the corporate communist coming for our last nickles so they can gamble them and win big or make us pay the bookie if things don't work out."
What's a "corporate communist"?
Could you perhaps re-phrase that sentence?
|
last1standing
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jan-10-10 05:25 AM
Response to Original message |
26. Talk about a hit and run thread... |
|
If you're "all ears" why haven't you responded to a single comment? Easy answer, you never had any intention of doing so.
Flamebait from a flamebait artist.
FAIL!
|
ima_sinnic
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jan-10-10 05:40 AM
Response to Original message |
27. another transparently idiotic OP bites the unrec bullet |
|
Edited on Sun Jan-10-10 05:40 AM by ima_sinnic
are you a teaching asst in American Govt 101 testing one of your quiz questions or something?
or maybe some astroturfer testing talking points? FYI, this one isn't going over too well. better get with that ad agency to come up with some new meaningless slogans.
|
SergeStorms
(248 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Jan-10-10 06:26 AM
Response to Original message |
28. It's a little hard to judge....... |
|
seeing that President Obama has only served one year of his term. We don't have the luxury of comparing his entire first term to anyone yet.
So far? :shrug: I haven't been too impressed. I expected much more considering the campaign rhetoric that was bandied about.
|
golfguru
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-11-10 12:13 AM
Response to Original message |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 11:12 AM
Response to Original message |