Gee, imagine that. Obama breaks still one more promise -- and the press is noticing

[spike]

Re: Gee, imagine that. Obama breaks still one more promise -- and the press is notici

Who's actions am I defending Jim?

I'm asking Gonz to back up his statement with the hourly totals. Where's the public record with the hourly totals?

Also, would you mind answering the "Who did that" question above?

So far it's looking like you guys are making shit up and acting like its fact again.

 

[2minkey]

Re: Gee, imagine that. Obama breaks still one more promise -- and the press is notici

You look it up. You are the one defending his actions. Our contentions are already a matter of public record.

wow jim. seems like you're always the one wanting to dig, dig, dig. how come you no wanna this time? why don;t you find them public records you little googling sexpot?

 

[Gonz]

Re: Gee, imagine that. Obama breaks still one more promise -- and the press is notici

Turn on your TV

 

[randomJACKASS]

Re: Gee, imagine that. Obama breaks still one more promise -- and the press is notici

What it really boils down to in regards to the "liberal media" is that the so called "liberal media", is the part of the media that aims for objectivity and doesn't push conservative talking points. To a conservative neutral and/or objective is against them. A media outlet could give equal time and not push any agenda and conservatives will say they are liberal and against them. It just goes with the basic nature of conservatives, who are proven to be much more prone to paranoia than their more liberal counterparts.

I won't even say that there aren't certain biases in the media, but the difference is that propaganda machines like Fox news push the conservative agenda and then very loudly proclaim to be objective when they make every effort to not be objective. More liberal biased outlets such as the New York times, actually try to be objective. Bias may show, but actual effort is made not to be biased. Also to consider is that all politicians lie, but liberals tend to be more interested in education and learning where the religious right would prefer that the people stay ignorant and just follow. Don't question authority, don't question the church, just blindly follow like the sheep they need to stay in business.

 

[Gonz]

Re: Gee, imagine that. Obama breaks still one more promise -- and the press is notici

What it really boils down to in regards to the "liberal media" is that the so called "liberal media", is the part of the media that aims for objectivity and doesn't push conservative talking points. To a conservative neutral and/or objective is against them. A media outlet could give equal time and not push any agenda and conservatives will say they are liberal and against them. It just goes with the basic nature of conservatives, who are proven to be much more prone to paranoia than their more liberal counterparts.

I won't even say that there aren't certain biases in the media, but the difference is that propaganda machines like Fox news push the conservative agenda and then very loudly proclaim to be objective when they make every effort to not be objective. More liberal biased outlets such as the New York times, actually try to be objective. Bias may show, but actual effort is made not to be biased. Also to consider is that all politicians lie, but liberals tend to be more interested in education and learning where the religious right would prefer that the people stay ignorant and just follow. Don't question authority, don't question the church, just blindly follow like the sheep they need to stay in business.

*pats the good sheeple on his head as a sign of fidelity*

The conservative complaint is simple. Stop favoring either side.

 

[randomJACKASS]

Re: Gee, imagine that. Obama breaks still one more promise -- and the press is notici

*pats the good sheeple on his head as a sign of fidelity*

The conservative complaint is simple. Stop favoring either side.

No the conservative wants slant and spin, in their direction, thus Fox News.....

 

[spike]

Re: Gee, imagine that. Obama breaks still one more promise -- and the press is notici

Turn on your TV

Done, it doesn't support your claim. Now do you have those hourly totals?

 

[Gonz]

Re: Gee, imagine that. Obama breaks still one more promise -- and the press is notici

I'm to take it your TV didn't spew hours & hours of drivel about Obama & his energy meeting partners?

 

[spike]

Re: Gee, imagine that. Obama breaks still one more promise -- and the press is notici

It mentioned about the same amount as the Cheney stuff.

So do you have anything to back up your shit or where you just making stuff up again and stating it as fact?

 

[jimpeel]

Re: Gee, imagine that. Obama breaks still one more promise -- and the press is notici

Also, would you mind answering the "Who did that" question above?

So far it's looking like you guys are making shit up and acting like its fact again.

wow jim. seems like you're always the one wanting to dig, dig, dig. how come you no wanna this time? why don;t you find them public records you little googling sexpot?

If I've told you once I've told you ten times I don't use Google.

How about the Washington Post

ABC News

The New York Times

The Sierra Club

The Center for Public Integrity

Judicial Watch

MSNBC

Various Leftist hacks HERE, and HERE, and HERE, and HERE, and HERE.

Need more? Find them yourselves.

I see no effort on your part to prove your contentions whatsoever. You are just having too much fun sending others on wild goose chases. The problem you have is that I enjoy this. Maybe you won't pay attention to what you have me post but perhaps the lurkers will.

 

[spike]

Re: Gee, imagine that. Obama breaks still one more promise -- and the press is notici

Jim as a reminder you're contention was "Those who were demanding answers from Cheney who now refuse to give those same answers when they are demanded of them."

Now you've given us some links to Cheney being under investigation that don't apply to that contention.

For example the NYT piece... "The General Accounting Office said today that it would sue the White House to try to force Vice President Dick Cheney to release documents detailing contacts between corporate executives and the administration's energy task force."

Now for your contention to be true the General Accounting Office would have to be refusing to release documents detailing contacts between corporate executives and the General Accounting Office's energy task force.

Is that true? Doesn't look like it. In fact your contention doesn't look to be supported by any of your links.

 

[jimpeel]

Re: Gee, imagine that. Obama breaks still one more promise -- and the press is notici

Jim as a reminder you're contention was "Those who were demanding answers from Cheney who now refuse to give those same answers when they are demanded of them."

Now you've given us some links to Cheney being under investigation that don't apply to that contention.

For example the NYT piece... "The General Accounting Office said today that it would sue the White House to try to force Vice President Dick Cheney to release documents detailing contacts between corporate executives and the administration's energy task force."

Now for your contention to be true the General Accounting Office would have to be refusing to release documents detailing contacts between corporate executives and the General Accounting Office's energy task force.

Is that true? Doesn't look like it. In fact your contention doesn't look to be supported by any of your links.

My links support every one of my contentions and answers your demand that I show "Who did that" which you reiterated gain demanding "Also, would you mind answering the "Who did that" question above?" while accusing "So far it's looking like you guys are making shit up and acting like its fact again.".

Our contention was that the Left demanded that the records of the Cheney Energy Taskforce meetings be released and even sued to that end.

The Obama administration is using the same thing to protect his confidential meetings as the Bush administration did to protect the Cheney confidential meetings.

Judicial watch SUED AND LOST when they tried to get the Cheney records; and I believe that any suit to force Obama to release his records will meet the same fate.

Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Nat’l Energy Policy Dev. Group, et al.

The Bush administration formed the National Energy Policy Development Group to develop the nation's energy policy in 2001. However, in violation of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, or the open meetings law, as it is better known, the task force refused to turn over information pertaining to who was involved and what was discussed. (This is same law conservatives accused Hillary Clinton of violating when she attempted to launch her secret government takeover of the nation's healthcare system in the early 1990s.)

Judicial Watch immediately filed Freedom of Information Act requests and other legal actions to bring the inner workings of the Energy Task Force out in to the open for public scrutiny. When the Bush Administration refused to comply, JW had no choice but to file lawsuits. Since that time, nearly 40,000 pages of documents from agencies such as the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency have been released into the public domain.

Unfortunately, on May 9, 2005, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that the Vice President's Energy Task Force did not have to comply with the Federal Advisory Act. Given the importance of the legal issues involved, and the string of court victories earned by Judicial Watch, this was still a battle worth fighting.

 

[jimpeel]

Re: Gee, imagine that. Obama breaks still one more promise -- and the press is notici

For example the NYT piece... "The General Accounting Office said today that it would sue the White House to try to force Vice President Dick Cheney to release documents detailing contacts between corporate executives and the administration's energy task force."

Now for your contention to be true the General Accounting Office would have to be refusing to release documents detailing contacts between corporate executives and the General Accounting Office's energy task force.

Is that true? Doesn't look like it. In fact your contention doesn't look to be supported by any of your links.

You are not very good at reading the first part of the stories I post, are you.

What the very first part of the story in the thread header said was this:

As a senator, Barack Obama denounced the Bush administration for holding "secret energy meetings" with oil executives at the White House. But last week public-interest groups were dismayed when his own administration rejected a Freedom of Information Act request for Secret Service logs showing the identities of coal executives who had visited the White House to discuss Obama's "clean coal" policies. One reason: the disclosure of such records might impinge on privileged "presidential communications." The refusal, approved by White House counsel Greg Craig's office, is the latest in a series of cases in which Obama officials have opted against public disclosure.

The New York Times article cited said this:

The General Accounting Office said today that it would sue the White House to try to force Vice President Dick Cheney to release documents detailing contacts between corporate executives and the administration's energy task force.

In a letter to the White House and Congressional leaders, David M. Walker, the comptroller general of the United States and director of the accounting office, said he intended to ask a federal judge to order Mr. Cheney to give Congress the identities of energy industry executives who helped the Bush administration formulate a national energy policy last year. Mr. Walker said he was also seeking the subject that each executive discussed with task force members. Mr. Cheney was the chairman of the task force.

Do the two highlighted bolded underlined passages sound very similar?

Your contention that "General Accounting Office would have to be refusing to release documents detailing contacts between corporate executives and the General Accounting Office's energy task force." is patently false. It was not the GAO which was refusing to release the Cheney Energy Taskforce information. They were trying to force the administration to release the information; and they were threatening to sue to that end.

God! Why do I have to keep leading you by the hand when the information is right there in front of you? Do you do this just to fuck with me? If so, you deserve an infraction.

Where's Luis G when you need him?

 

[jimpeel]

Re: Gee, imagine that. Obama breaks still one more promise -- and the press is notici

<chirp> <chirp> <chirp> <chirp> <chirp> <chirp> <chirp> <chirp> <chirp> <chirp> <chirp> <chirp> <chirp> <chirp> <chirp> <chirp> <chirp> <chirp> <chirp> <chirp> <chirp> <chirp> <chirp> <chirp> <chirp> <chirp> <chirp> <chirp> <chirp> <chirp> <chirp> <chirp> <chirp> <chirp> <chirp> <chirp> <chirp> <chirp> <chirp> <chirp> <chirp> <chirp> <chirp> <chirp> <chirp> <chirp> <chirp> <chirp> <chirp> <chirp> <chirp> <chirp> <chirp> <chirp> <chirp> <chirp> <chirp> <chirp> <chirp> <chirp> <chirp> <chirp> <chirp> <chirp> <chirp> <chirp> <chirp> <chirp> <chirp> <chirp> <chirp> <chirp> <chirp> <chirp> <chirp> <chirp> <chirp> <chirp> <chirp> <chirp> <chirp> <chirp> <chirp> <chirp> <chirp> <chirp> <chirp> <chirp> <chirp> <chirp> <chirp> <chirp> <chirp> <chirp> <chirp> <chirp> <chirp> <chirp> <chirp> <chirp> <chirp> <chirp> <chirp> <chirp> <chirp> <chirp> <chirp> <chirp> <chirp> <chirp> <chirp>

 

[spike]

Re: Gee, imagine that. Obama breaks still one more promise -- and the press is notici

Pretty simple Jim.

"Those who were demanding answers from Cheney who now refuse to give those same answers when they are demanded of them."

So I guess we're waiting for someone who was demanding answers from Cheney and refusing to give those same answers when they're demanded of them.

 

[Frodo]

Re: Gee, imagine that. Obama breaks still one more promise -- and the press is notici

So I guess we're waiting for someone who was demanding answers from Cheney and refusing to give those same answers when they're demanded of them.

As a senator, Barack Obama denounced the Bush administration for holding "secret energy meetings" with oil executives at the White House. But last week public-interest groups were dismayed when his own administration rejected a Freedom of Information Act request for Secret Service logs showing the identities of coal executives who had visited the White House to discuss Obama's "clean coal" policies.

Does this not fit?

 

[2minkey]

Re: Gee, imagine that. Obama breaks still one more promise -- and the press is notici

You are just having too much fun sending others on wild goose chases.

only those that imagine their own bait and chomp right on it. i don't recall issuing any challenge of substance. i guess i could review the thread and find out for sure. nah, it's mostly just you squirreling away nuts.

The problem you have is that I enjoy this.

eeew. i think now i understand the key issue.

Maybe you won't pay attention to what you have me post but perhaps the lurkers will.

ah, your legions of adoring lurker fans.

 

[spike]

Re: Gee, imagine that. Obama breaks still one more promise -- and the press is notici

Does this not fit?

"Demanding answers" doesn't really fit but I guess you're saying Cheney and Obama should have been more public with their meetings.

 

[randomJACKASS]

Re: Gee, imagine that. Obama breaks still one more promise -- and the press is notici

...ah, your legions of adoring lurker fans.

Thanks mink I will chuckle over that for a few days, possibly weeks!

 

[Frodo]

Re: Gee, imagine that. Obama breaks still one more promise -- and the press is notici

"Demanding answers" doesn't really fit but I guess you're saying Cheney and Obama should have been more public with their meetings.