• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama pledges 'era of openness'

I'll believe it when I see it.
 
Damn. Tough crowd.
 
I'll believe it when I see it.

Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The bill was introduced by Senator Tom Coburn, for himself and Senators Barack Obama, Tom Carper and John McCain on April 6, 2006.[1] After two "secret holds" placed by Senators Ted Stevens, a Republican, and Robert Byrd, a Democrat were revealed and removed[4][5], it was passed unanimously in the Senate on September 7, 2006 and by the House on September 13, 2006. The bill was signed into law by President George W. Bush on September 26, 2006.[6]
 
Ppfffffftttt!!
 
But Obama is talking about taking it MUCH further. Lets hope that becomes reality. That people once again can trust governments.

The government is never, under any circumstance, to be trusted.
 
Sometimes I wonder if there's a reason many presidents change their tune when they get to the white house. He pledges an 'era of openness' now but he has yet to be briefed to the full extent as president. I can only imagine the knowledge the president is privy to that many others are not.
 
Sometimes I wonder if there's a reason many presidents change their tune when they get to the white house. He pledges an 'era of openness' now but he has yet to be briefed to the full extent as president. I can only imagine the knowledge the president is privy to that many others are not.
Are you purposely misconstruing the intent. You're going to imply that a policy of openness mean divulging secrets? I question the openness, but it's obvious what is meant.
 
Are you purposely misconstruing the intent. You're going to imply that a policy of openness mean divulging secrets? I question the openness, but it's obvious what is meant.

Not necessarily the secrets, but its far easier to say the government will be more open than it is to actually make it so. He could get in office and they would tell him it'll cost 10 billion dollars to do what he's asking. I didn't mean to misconstrue the intent, just wondering out loud.
 
I wonder when this promise will expire?

During the campaign we saw all sorts of important promises that ultimately expired when they became politically problemmatic, e.g., NAFTA, FISA and telco immunity, immediate withdrawal from Iraq, immediate closing of Gitmo, public financing, etc., etc., etc.
 
He wasn't exactly open and transparent during the election, so why would the leopard change its spots?

Oh, come one...what do you mean? Obama pledged not to play the same Washington game with the same Washington players. And look at his nominations, so far:

Rahm;
Daschle;
Holder;
Susan Rice;
Hillary....

Ooooops, that's not going so well, either, eh? :roll:
 
He wasn't exactly open and transparent during the election, so why would the leopard change its spots?

He's a politician, on top of that he's from Chicago. Seriously, how long is it going to take for people to understand you can't trust the man? He'll say whatever he wants to get whatever he wants; anyone whom is a liability to him will be thrown under the bus. Remember when Obama said that he'd no sooner disown Rev. Wright than he would his own grandmother? What happened? Wright wouldn't shut his mouth, kept proving a thorn in Obama's side. Then right overboard he went, Obama ditched him. Just like any politician, he's untrustworthy. Trust in the government is not a wise thing, trust in a Chicago politician is worthy of being committed to an insane asylum.
 
That's why he hired all Clinton retreads. Puullease. :roll:

Having Hillary Clinton as part of his government seriously bumped the image of Obama, I think in most circles, except the super conservative, Islam paranoids, fear spreaders.
 
The government is never, under any circumstance, to be trusted.

Ofcourse not.. I never claimed that.. But I am all for more openness and transparency.. Actually I am pretty extreme in this way about politics, I want independent committees of people who work for the people to surveillance politics and politicians 24/7, I want complete transparency, no parties and super accountability.
 
Having Hillary Clinton as part of his government seriously bumped the image of Obama, I think in most circles,...

Why? What foreign policy chops does Hillary possess that substantially changed the perception of Obama who was already viewed extremely favorably?
 
He wasn't exactly open and transparent during the election, so why would the leopard change its spots?

Actually I consider Obama kind of a flip flopper.. He has changed a lot of his stands the last year for example. I hope he goes back to what he first was.. That he finds his roots.
 
Actually I consider Obama kind of a flip flopper.. He has changed a lot of his stands the last year for example. I hope he goes back to what he first was.. That he finds his roots.

I think Obama's roots are that of his beginnings as an attorney. Meaning he is probably going to shift his "colors" to represent his client. At first it was just the anti-war crowd, then it was just the democrats, then it was moderates as he drew nearer the election, and now as President, he is going to attempt to represent his client which is the American people. I personally hope he holds up to his promise of "not apologizing for our way of life", that he put forth in his inaugural address.
 
Back
Top Bottom