Obama...not so transparent!
 

Obama blocks list of visitors to White House
Taking Bush's position, administration denies msnbc.com request for logs
By Bill Dedman
Investigative reporter
msnbc.com
updated 2 hours, 22 minutes ago

read the rest here... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31373407...s-white_house/

I guess all that talk about transparency doesn't quite work for him. I wonder who is visiting him that he doesn't want us and the press to know about!

Saoirse,

I think it may reveal "muslims"(my tin foil hat is firmly attached)who he maybe working with secretly,to try and work out something with Iran.......:eek: Doesn't want us peasants to know about it.........:rolleyes: Time will tell........;)

GB TFS :munchin

Great point TFS!

And well, if I was asked to visit to give my two cents on anything...I sure as hell would be talking about it till I was blue in the face!:eek:

Hussein O. : "So, how do you think I am doing my first 200 days?"

Me: "Well, Mr. President, if I may direct you to a website that I know of?...Just type in Professionalsoldiers dot com. Yes, yes, I know it is a lot to ask of 'your greatness', but I think you'll be very surprised to hear how a lot of us US Military supporting-REAL Americans feel sir! So here, let me type it in for you!";)

Holly:rolleyes:

"GB TFS,"

Perhaps he's having late night prayer sessions with Reverend Wright and discussing his ideas for Homeland Security with Bill Ayers?

Saoirse you got it, just talk, what he says and what he does have seldom matched thus far, and I think it will only get worse.

Personally - I'm surprised that anyone would think he's any different than anyone - from whatever party - seeking to become POTUS. ;)

Richard's $.02 :munchin

Richard Sir...

In my neverending quest to obtain knowledge...

May I ask, "Why" Sir?:o

Thank you Sir,

Holly

Normally I'd agree with you but I find it particularly galling that the media and a large swath of the American electorate fell for the President's empty promise of change. Usually when a politician says that he is going to change the tone in Washington most reasonable people assume that they are full of it. What I can't figure out is if people are just that stupid or they were so desperate for any sort of change they believed every word of it. IMHO aside from the infidelity issues there isn't much difference between WJC and President Obama. They are both master politicians that seem to be able to delude large crowds armed with little more than charm.

I'll have to disagree with you there, I think WJC was in it for himself only, and while I think President Obama is also in it for his own glory I think he is also is in it to truly "CHANGE" America, the problem is what he wants to change it into.

Just my .02

I was referring to style not motivation.

I'm not convinced that the President is actively trying to do all this evil which has been attributed to him.
(and my political leanings are just a little to the right of Ghengis Khan...)

Rather, it seems that he's just going with what he knows: Chicago-style politics.
Under stress, people revert to what they know.

He's a likeable guy who is utterly incompetent at his actual job (governing).
It's jimmy carter's second term. :rolleyes:

Bad analogy. On the spectrum of political ideology, where left is total tyranny and right is total anarchy, Ghengis Khan would be on the very left edge of the scale. Your statement indicates you are on the left most side of the scale. However, I believe I get your drift.

He's a Progressive (a Communist by any other name is still a Communist) who believes strongly in that ideology. He also has an ego the size of the Milky Way.


Carter was not nearly as dangerous or adept at taking power.

I agree. Rather, he's of the opinion that he's enlightened, and must act to protect us, the citizenry, from our own ignorance. As C.S. Lewis observed:

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

Razor..I agree with you! And I see him as an "enlightened idealist" with his Chicago-style politics (we have seen in the news how that works..thanks Blago for your lessons in Chicago politics).

"Cynics regarded everybody as equally corrupt. Idealists regarded everybody as equally corrupt, except themselves."
— Robert Anton, philosopher

Obama Closes Doors on Openness
 

Could the issue of transparency grow to be a stone around the president's neck? First MSNBC News and now Newsweek are taking the man to task for his flip flop.

Source is here.

FWIW, I strongly disagree with the statement that a Progressive is anywhere close to being a Communist. IIRC, Theodore Roosevelt spoke very highly of progressivism (link).

Take your pick - they're all here. ;)

Richard's $.02 :munchin

You should know better
 

You should know better.

Today's Liberal is not the same as a Liberal from 100 years ago.

Progressivism of the early 1900s is not the same as what liberals call the progressivism of today.

The progressives of today are last years liberals who want us to call them progressives this year. What will they want to be called in the 2010 elections - True Conservatives?

The left is going to be soooooo disapointed in Sharia Law.

With respect, does the fact that some would change the meanings of words and phrases mean that we should participate in that process? If one answers that question "yes" then one is advocating a postmodernist approach to discourse.

Or should we attempt to hold the line and make sure we're defining terms accurately and using those terms correctly?

Just as SEALs and special operations Marines calling themselves "special forces" clouds the public's understanding of special operations forces in general and special forces in particular, the conflation of political definitions plays an equally disruptive role in contemporary political discourse.

We can
 

Oh, we can.

But the phrase "He has a good liberal education" does not mean the same thing today as it did 100 years ago.

Sig,
Every closet Leftist and KPFK subscriber I know refers to themselves as a Progressive. For most of those in my acquaintance, the word is code for “Communist/Far Leftist working within the System.” Some of them are registered Republicans (none of whom can articulate or defend a conservative idea, or would have dreamed of voting for George Bush).
I think we can safely make a distinction between Teddy Roosevelt’s Bull Moose Party of 1912, and the contemporary political activists who have adopted the term and have given it its meaning in current usage, like these people:

http://progressivelabor.890m.com/
sample their music here:
http://www.plp.org/PL_albums/songlist.html

http://www.progressive.org/

http://www.campusprogress.org/

http://www.americanprogress.org/issu...ogy_youth.html

If you’re unfamiliar with your local Pacifica Radio station, you can get an idea of what KPFK is about, here:
http://www.kpfk.org/pledge/catalog/i...acturers_id=32
If you’re a Noam Chomsky fan, you’ll find a lot of company at KPFK.

Ditto...
 

Ditto on the Progressive term being Socialist and way Left.
SIg...You're not a Leftist but tend to be out in left field. there are rarely standards "we" can keep if the other side changes the meanings. These things still have to be addressed.

Again I say the Constitution of the United States IS A RIGHT WING Document. It is therefore difficult to proclaim a right winger as Radical, when the Constitution is not a Center line Document. It is Conservative, very conservative.
The recent argument about gun laws being the right of the States is absolutely false. All the rights granted by the Constitution are "Individual" not State.
Okay, I get carried away.
The POTUS is not trying to help the US but rather break us down far enough to allow his take over (with Muslin aid). His alliances are shady at best. Don't be fooled by semantics. That battle will relegate us to mere insects squabbling on the floor, while the anointed one gets away with his agenda. Blitzzz out

Sigaba,

Portions of the Progressive platform
Progressive Platform of 1912 - Teddy Roosevelt party

The Progressive party, believing that a free people should have the power from time to time to amend their fundamental law so as to adapt it progressively to the changing needs of the people, pledges itself to provide a more easy and expeditious method of amending the Federal Constitution.
We demand that the test of true prosperity shall be the benefits conferred thereby on all the citizens, not confined to individuals or classes, and that the test of corporate efficiency shall be the ability better to serve the public; that those who profit by control of business affairs shall justify that profit and that control by sharing with the public the fruits thereof.
We believe in a graduated inheritance tax as a National means of equalizing the obligations of holders of property to Government, and we hereby pledge our party to enact such a Federal law as will tax large inheritances, returning to the States an equitable percentage of all amounts collected.

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/l...p?document=607
SnT

SnT--

I believe the passage you've provided helps to prove my point. The fact that the platform maintains the rights of individuals and corporations to own property is directly contrary to one of the principal objectives of international communism: the abolition of all private ownership of property as a means of annihilating the individual as a political and economic actor. Marx and Engles are clear on this point in the second chapter of The Communist Manifesto (source is here).
Moreover, as the Progressive party platform was situated in a specific context (i.e. the traditions of Jefferson, Lincoln, and the United States Constitution), it is centered around a theory of history that is antithetical to Marx's and Engels's view of historical progress.

The two rejected history as an example of a tool used by the prevailing ruling class to justify its dominance.

Blitzzz,

I whole heartily agree with you......:lifter

Big Teddy :munchin

Would you suggest fascism would be a closer match? I do believe a strong argument could be made for that case. I'm no scholar or historian by trade, but what I know of the early 20th Century Progressive movement would indicate that fascism may indeed be a better match. So, maybe I should change my statement. Whether, progressive or fascist, or they're assigning czars or dictators, it all shakes out the same in the wash.

The perceived ownship of private property is but a ruse to make one believe that they have some level of control, when, in reality, they do not. So communism is just a tad more honest than facism. For me, the individual, it's all the same dictatorial control, whether it's early 20th Century or early 21st Century Progressivism.

KClapp--

IMHO, it works to the president's political advantage for his critics to claim he's either a communist or a fascist. Making either argument requires two resources in short supply: time and access to source materials that would help to document the development of his political ideology.

I think that Grateful Citizen and Gypsy have offered a more advantageous line of approach. Their separate suggestions that the president is a product of Chicago politics offers a simpler (but not simplistic) approach: hold the mirror of the Second City to the president and ask Americans "Is this what you want your country to look like?" MOO is that this approach can get more traction if it is pursued vigorously.

However, if pressed, I would use the following "ists" to describe the president.

• egoist
• opportunist
• elitist
• belletrist
• urbanist
• apologist
• chauvinist
• orientalist
• sexist
• racist
• con artist

YMMV.

Incarcerated and Blitzzz--

With respect to your points regarding the contested meaning of "progressivism," I would point to George Orwell's "Politics and the English Language" (1946). (Yes, I am aware of the man's politics. What's good for the goose....;)) Source is here.
And later on in the essay he offered this blunt assessment (source is here).
Informed by this sensibility (and of being repeatedly hammered by the late Mauricio Mazon to define and to use terms accurately), I remain committed to the belief that it isn't merely an exercise in semantics to contest those who would change the meanings of terms. Is this practice going to leave me as an insect "squabbling on the floor?" Unlikely.

Most of those who today call themselves Progressives are not. They should not be allowed to appropriate that term when their agenda is contrary to the goals Theordore Roosevelt articulated in a letter to a friend over a century ago.
______________________________________________
* Roosevelt to George Trevelyn, 9 March 2005, as quoted in H.W. Brands, TR: The Last Romantic (New York: Basic Books, 1997), p. 541.

Words....
 

Words are the platter upon which thought is delivered verbally. Your words, Orwell's words or my words. Gold, silver ,or plastic platters do not alter the essence of the thought.
Quote whom you will, but the actions are the "IS" of the thought.
Hummmm...what the hell did I just say? Blitzzz

There is a segment of the population who were raised and trained to hate both. Some even lost friends battling both. For those of us "haters" out here, it is a readily identifiable term we can use to solidify our stand. For those without that upbringing, training, and experience, it is a different story.

It's possible.

= dictator. ;)
______________________________________________

There's so much overheated rhetorical hyperbole already in use, that a lot of people tune out when they hear, "He's a fascist!" That kind of soundbite label is heard daily to describe the police officer writing a parking ticket, or the father grounding a teenager, or the boss restricting personal phone calls on company time.

The speaker may be making a serious statement with full awareness of actual fascism or socialism.

However, a lot of listeners will filter it automatically and mentally file the speaker as just another hysterical ranting nut, rather than a serious warning to be heeded.

I believe that is Sigaba's concern.

He's a lot of things but he's not a dictator, how do I know?

I'm still alive and "free".

Get your head out of your butt.

TS

My head may indeed be up my fourth point of contact, but the characteristics Sigaba described may also be ascribed to a dictator. I just call'em as I see'em.

My personal concern, with respect to our POTUS and his minions, is how much longer that condition will remain true for his domestic opponents.

Have to disagree with you on where the Constitution stands.
It is the finest example of political compromised the world has ever seen. It has to be THE center line document or there is no possibility for further discussion, public inclusion, further compromise or growth. As American the Constitution is "Home base" for all us.

You see the Constitution as a centerpoint or starting place from which to move right or left? I want to be sure I understand you.

Conservative, n.: A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others.

- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary (1911)

Ain't much changed since then amongst Polecatus Americanus Washingtonium. ;)

Richard's $.02 :munchin

I prefer
 

I prefer the study of Foxus Americanus.

Doser523..What part of the Constitution do you feel is "compromised" enough to pull it "left" to the CENTER.
I find nothing in it to suggest the Leftist views (socialism). All of it is related to Individual rights.

You talking Constitution or Bill of Rights?

The Constitution and Bill of Rights has language which is purposefully exact (e.g., must be 35 to run for POTUS) and purposefully vague (e.g., speedy and public trial - what does 'speedy' mean?) to allow for its elasticity in coping with inevitable societal change.

Of course the vagueness of the Constitution is also the source of much of the problem in its interpretation by any of us. We have massive agencies and massive costs to the taxpayers as a result of a few vague concepts in the Constitution - e.g., the "Commerce Clause" and the "General Welfare Clause".

The growth by the Federal government has allowed the vague "Commerce Clause" to trump the rather specific Tenth Amendment. This has been confirmed by the Supreme Court in several cases, the most signigicant one being the "WICKARD v. FILBURN, 317 U.S. 111 (1942)" case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

An excellent article on this great example of how vagueness can override specificity is The Commerce Clause: Route to Omnipotent Government, by Sheldon Richman, August 1995, at the Future of Freedom Foundation site.

http://www.fff.org/freedom/0895g.asp

Joseph Sobran's The “General Welfare” offers a good discussion of the abuses afforded by the "General Welfare Clause".

http://www.sobran.com/columns/1999-2001/991123.shtml

This offers an interesting perspective - The Founding Fathers: A Reform Caucus in Action by John P. Roche of Brandeis University in The American Political Science Review.

http://www.politics.ubc.ca/fileadmin...goux/Roche.pdf

I'm not sure anyone can say with certainty whether the US Constitution and Bill of Rights is either conservative or liberal - and I think the framers may have wanted it that way. ;)

Richard's $.02 :munchin

Both are one...
 

May be mistaken, but I view the Constitution only part of the whole. One does not exist without the other. Amendments to "The Constitution" are part of the constitution. The constitution allows for these, but doesn't make it easy.

A centerpoint and a starting point but to move Neither right nor left. Rather, Forward as the framers intended. They knew much would change in the future.

Young Obee's school days. ;)

Richard's $.02 :munchin