patrick.net

Question: How do you know when a politician is lying?

(Its a rhetorical question).

A: when his lips are moving.

It's not just Obama, there hasn't been anything transparent in Washington, since Clintons trousers.

Transparency only works at Frederick's of Hollywood.

Even Victoria's Secret isn't very secret.

Tenouncetrout says

It’s not just Obama, there hasn’t been anything transparent in Washington, since Clintons trousers.

There hasn't been transparency since long before Clinton. But it's easier to blame the issue on the current president or his party than it is to admit it's systemic.

I agree with the opinion that it is systemic. Admitting the truth would require "painful" choices to remedy the problems. The result? The politicians who did the right thing would be thrown out of office (not re-elected). And therein lies America's problem, in a nutshell.

Well Duh Ellie, the gissim trials were the only transparency in Washington since the Warren commission.

Now that the two irrelevant parties have whittled them selves down to a 25% minority of society. Let's just hope and pray that the remaining 50% that doesn't identify with either Idiotic party, will vote independent, and the unknown new comers this year and in 2012.
That's unless they can make excuses for the Assbags running, saying brain dead shit like... "Oh he's a Republican more of a Libertarian" or "Oh he's a Liberal but leans more conservative..."
Especially when referring to assholes that have been a part of the Free for all corporate raiding that has taken part in Washington for the last 20-25 years.

TOT crossing his fingers and toes, but not holding his breath...

Nomograph says

Are you saying RayAmerica wears lace panties?

Are you sharing one of your perverted fantasies with us? How nice. I'm flattered.

Tenouncetrout says

Especially when referring to assholes that have been a part of the Free for all corporate raiding that has taken part in Washington for the last 20-25 years.

DITTO

Tenouncetrout says

Now that the two irrelevant parties have whittled them selves down to a 25% minority of society. Let’s just hope and pray that the remaining 50% that doesn’t identify with either Idiotic party, will vote independent, and the unknown new comers this year and in 2012.

If only we could get that 50% together into a viable third party instead of voting for the same two bone-headed parties every election, then I think we'd have a chance to change something. But this would require that 50% to get a platform together, attract good candidates, and raise enough money to become an actual political force. Unfortunately we still have a plutocracy and money is required before you can come to the party in our political system.

And I'd argue that there hasn't been any real transparency since before Tricky Dick and the "gaps" on those tapes. I think presidents since then have been much more careful with the flow of information coming out of their office.

I think that this is what makes the Pentagon and President Obama so nervous about http://wikileaks.org/ It's the first time in a very long time that anyone has presented actual direct information coming from government sources uncensored by the government. Our news agencies are all censored because every government official is "handled" by press secretaries whose job it is to present any "information" in the "best" light, or even to squash a story. All talking heads on the networks, cable, satellite, newspapers, magazines, and radio have their "news" filtered through government "press secretaries" and then through the corporate lens of their employers. There is no such thing as a free press anymore.

http://wikileaks.org/ could be our way back to a free press, if it's allowed to continue.

simchaland says

If only we could get that 50% together into a viable third party instead of voting for the same two bone-headed parties every election, then I think we’d have a chance to change something. But this would require that 50% to get a platform together, attract good candidates, and raise enough money to become an actual political force. Unfortunately we still have a plutocracy and money is required before you can come to the party in our political system.

You don't have to do SHIT!

Throw a goddamn rock, you'll randomly hit a better candidate than anyone running on a Republican or Democrat ticket. SURELY!!!!

How do we get more Wikileaks going.

By my estimate 90% of all classified documents are to:
a) cover someones ass for a screwup
b) perform illegal actions
c) avoid people knowing the governments press releases are lies

Tenouncetrout says

Throw a goddamn rock, you’ll randomly hit a better candidate than anyone running on a Republican or Democrat ticket. SURELY!!!!

Please don't call him Shirley!

sims post is a good one. I think this subject is about to get more limelight.

Just another example of Obama's PROMISE of transparency turning into just another campaign lie:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101006/ap_on_re_us/us_gulf_oil_spill_2

You know there is so much corporate money out there against Obama. I wonder whether they have guys like Ray and Abe, or more subtle propaganda soldiers on the payroll posting this kind of thing all over the internet.

Maybe things aren't too that point (YET). But it sure seems like it sometimes.

You finally hit a real one Ray. Good job.

RayAmerica says

PROMISE of transparency turning into just another campaign lie:

But if the NOAA had released worst-case and it didn't turn out to be the actual case, Obama would have been blamed for destroying coastal red-state summer tourism.

Obama was actually protecting the "redneck riviera" districts that voted 90% against him, but he still catches shit for it.

marcus says

You know there is so much corporate money out there against Obama. I wonder whether they have guys like Ray and Abe, or more subtle propaganda soldiers on the payroll posting this kind of thing all over the internet.

I'd like to apply for this job .... can I use you for a reference?

RayAmerica says

I’d like to apply for this job …. can I use you for a reference?

They won't pay you for it, because you're willing to do it for free. Although, as far as I know you get your stuff from some blog that is run by the kind of people I'm talking about. That probably is the case. Also, a lot of that kind of money may go to the right wing media that creates this stuff in the first place.

marcus says

They won’t pay you for it, because you’re willing to do it for free. Although, as far as I know you get your stuff from some blog that is run by the kind of people I’m talking about. That probably is the case. Also, a lot of that kind of money may go to the right wing media that creates this stuff in the first place.

What you are describing is the "VAST right wing conspiracy." I don't get my info from any blog site .... it all comes from "Faux News ... AM radio, blah blah blah." Never forget there is no such thing as a conservative that thinks for himself. Only liberals have that capacity. Never forget: War is Peace. Slavery is Freedom. Ignorance is Strength.

RayAmerica says

Ignorance is Strength

I understand what you mean to say.

I find it Ironic.

By the way, I recall that crazy Reid post of yours about GM. And I remember where it came from. Just so we can keep it straight which of us is talking out of which orifice.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/07/21/harry_reid_auto_bailout_probably_saved_ford.html

Just so you get my point, it's proof of the kind of place you find your anti-democrat stuff. Although, at least it's not all right wing craziness.

I'd like to see WikiLeaks go to work on corporations. Plenty of meat on those bones.

Folsom is a former associate of the Free Enterprise Institute and the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, both free market think tanks, and a frequent guest of the libertarian organization Foundation for Economic Education

He isn't going to answer.

More on Folsom (from Wikipedia): "Folsom believes the term robber barons is a misnomer, and that these men were constructive visionaries who benefited consumers and were integral to the development of industry."

Interesting, he's focusing on the positive side that I don't think anyone denies. Everyone knows that the term robber barron as applied to 19th century to early 20th industrial leaders refers to the negative aspects of the exploitative practices that were used by monopolies in the early huge growth burst of modern industry.
Doesn't it go without saying that the efficiencies, the profits, our country's economic growth and the consumer products were all at the same time good things ?

Strange, I can't imagine anyone denying that. It never occurred to me that that wasn't obvious. I don't think that anyone (other than people like Fulsom) has ever even tried to frame it as a question of whether or not the end justifies the means. That's not the question. The question is whether industry could have grown in a healthier way, without such exploitation and questionable practices. And the answer to that is obvious too.

Of course I'm not an "historian," so what do I know.

I think historians should try to transcend their political biases as much as possible when they do their research. Otherwise they aren't really historians, they are then nothing more than political commentators.