Clearly transparent administration

» Site Navigation
Home Page The Villages Maps The Villages Activities The Villages Clubs The Villages Book Healthcare Rentals Real Estate Section Classified Section The Villages Directory Home Improvement Site Guidelines Advertising Info Register Now Video Tutorials Frequently Asked Questions
» Newsletter Signup
» Premium Tower
» Advertisements
» Trending News
» Tower Sponsors




















» Premium Sponsors
» Banner Sponsors
» Advertisements
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 03-18-2015, 09:21 AM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default Clearly transparent administration

Seems we hear this from Jarret, etal. about how transparent and how open this administration is. EVERYONE knows it is another lie, and now MSM is finally waking up....

"WASHINGTON (AP) The Obama administration set a new record again for more often than ever censoring government files or outright denying access to them last year under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act, according to a new analysis of federal data by The Associated Press.

The government took longer to turn over files when it provided any, said more regularly that it couldn't find documents, and refused a record number of times to turn over files quickly that might be especially newsworthy.

It also acknowledged in nearly 1 in 3 cases that its initial decisions to withhold or censor records were improper under the law but only when it was challenged.


US sets new record for denying, censoring government files
  #2  
Old 03-18-2015, 09:24 AM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

More of your cut and paste propoganda (plagiarized), can't you have an original thought?
  #3  
Old 03-18-2015, 09:52 AM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest View Post
More of your cut and paste propoganda (plagiarized), can't you have an original thought?
So it is plagerized and not an original thought. OK I will give you that. How about some dialogue about the evident record of lack of transparency Obama
and his administration? Even the press has seen fit to have to raise the question as well?
  #4  
Old 03-18-2015, 10:29 AM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default You

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest View Post
So it is plagerized and not an original thought. OK I will give you that. How about some dialogue about the evident record of lack of transparency Obama
and his administration? Even the press has seen fit to have to raise the question as well?
Really must be kidding. No other presidency in history has been under such scrutiny as the right wing has subjected this administration too. The fact is your right wing has done nothing but investigate and through Karl rove and others spread outright lies. Then you want meaningful dialogue. What a joke.
  #5  
Old 03-18-2015, 10:54 AM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest View Post
Really must be kidding. No other presidency in history has been under such scrutiny as the right wing has subjected this administration too. The fact is your right wing has done nothing but investigate and through Karl rove and others spread outright lies. Then you want meaningful dialogue. What a joke.
Changing the subject to something else again does not answer the question asked.

Obama ran for president touting he would be transparent and the public would always be informed what he is undertaking. That has proven time and time again to not be how he operates. Just the opposite.

So cut the usual flipping it back to something else and the usual labeling and name calling.
As difficult as history has shown, how about an answer to the question that was asked for a change?
  #6  
Old 03-18-2015, 12:30 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

First, PLAGARISM is passing someone else's writings and passing it on as your own. THAT I DID NOT DO.

I made a statement that I believe in and to back it up, quoted the Associated Press, who made a study, and them gave them credit for the information I supplied to make my point. THIS IS REQUIRED BY TOTV rules, and US copyright law.

I choose not to participate in a forum, where readers are subject to "rantings" and totally misunderstood concepts, and actually attack someone for reading and giving backup to his remarks.

I suppose I just do not get the low level of reading skill, and the inability to understand the world. The reference to "uninformed" voters is spot on.

The rumblings about the failure of this forum might be traced to people who post looking down on those who make a point of understanding and trying to support a belief.

Some who simply make things up to rile and simply make snide comments were probably picked on in the playground as kids, and are stuck in that mentality.

Discussion of politics or current events REQUIRES reading and to support your argument.

Same folks destroying this forum as destroyed it in the past, and while most know very well who they are, the May post without a username.
  #7  
Old 03-18-2015, 12:40 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest View Post
Really must be kidding. No other presidency in history has been under such scrutiny as the right wing has subjected this administration too. The fact is your right wing has done nothing but investigate and through Karl rove and others spread outright lies. Then you want meaningful dialogue. What a joke.
Dear Guest: I would place more confidence in your statement if you provided a side by side comparison of the two administrations statistics pertaining to this issue. If you want to play with the big boys you better learn how to gather your statistics and how to present them to make your case; otherwise all you are accomplishing is promoting your own personal opinion

Personal Best Regards:
  #8  
Old 03-18-2015, 02:30 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest View Post
First, PLAGARISM is passing someone else's writings and passing it on as your own. THAT I DID NOT DO.

I made a statement that I believe in and to back it up, quoted the Associated Press, who made a study, and them gave them credit for the information I supplied to make my point. THIS IS REQUIRED BY TOTV rules, and US copyright law.

I choose not to participate in a forum, where readers are subject to "rantings" and totally misunderstood concepts, and actually attack someone for reading and giving backup to his remarks.

I suppose I just do not get the low level of reading skill, and the inability to understand the world. The reference to "uninformed" voters is spot on.

The rumblings about the failure of this forum might be traced to people who post looking down on those who make a point of understanding and trying to support a belief.

Some who simply make things up to rile and simply make snide comments were probably picked on in the playground as kids, and are stuck in that mentality.

Discussion of politics or current events REQUIRES reading and to support your argument.

Same folks destroying this forum as destroyed it in the past, and while most know very well who they are, the May post without a username.
This forum is nowhere near a failure. It has accomplished everything it was designed to do. Who cares if your name shows up or not? Who cares if some posters take shots? It's about politics, and that is never pretty or exactly fair.

.
  #9  
Old 03-18-2015, 02:49 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

[QUOTE=Guest;1030645]This forum is nowhere near a failure. It has accomplished everything it was designed to do. Who cares if your name shows up or not? Who cares if some posters take shots? It's about politics, and that is never pretty or exactly fair.

.[/QUO

  #10  
Old 03-18-2015, 02:50 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest View Post
Changing the subject to something else again does not answer the question asked.

Obama ran for president touting he would be transparent and the public would always be informed what he is undertaking. That has proven time and time again to not be how he operates. Just the opposite.

So cut the usual flipping it back to something else and the usual labeling and name calling.
As difficult as history has shown, how about an answer to the question that was asked for a change?
The explanation is pretty simple ... Obama, as an Alinskyite, believes it's moral to lie if it advances his vision of a socialist utopia ...thus he lies, prevaricates and obfuscates readily. To give him credit where credit is due, he is quite good at it.
  #11  
Old 03-18-2015, 02:55 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest View Post
Dear Guest: I would place more confidence in your statement if you provided a side by side comparison of the two administrations statistics pertaining to this issue. If you want to play with the big boys you better learn how to gather your statistics and how to present them to make your case; otherwise all you are accomplishing is promoting your own personal opinion

Personal Best Regards:
I find your use of the term "big boys" offensive, sexist, possibly racist and in general Neanderthal not to mention un-PC and reflective of the white privilege patriarchy yadda yadda. It also fails to be inclusive of all the contributions made to America by Muslims and the transgendered
  #12  
Old 03-18-2015, 03:32 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest View Post
I find your use of the term "big boys" offensive, sexist, possibly racist and in general Neanderthal not to mention un-PC and reflective of the white privilege patriarchy yadda yadda. It also fails to be inclusive of all the contributions made to America by Muslims and the transgendered
The old turn it around to mean something that suits the response.......however, the reference to "big boys" has never meant any of the inferences stated above.
Totally and completey wrong. A re-iteration/hallucination of intent that is itself much, much more offensive.
  #13  
Old 03-18-2015, 03:33 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

And constitues picking fly specs out of pepper.
  #14  
Old 03-18-2015, 03:50 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest View Post
I find your use of the term "big boys" offensive, sexist, possibly racist and in general Neanderthal not to mention un-PC and reflective of the white privilege patriarchy yadda yadda. It also fails to be inclusive of all the contributions made to America by Muslims and the transgendered
Of course you do.
  #15  
Old 03-18-2015, 03:58 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest View Post
I find your use of the term "big boys" offensive, sexist, possibly racist and in general Neanderthal not to mention un-PC and reflective of the white privilege patriarchy yadda yadda. It also fails to be inclusive of all the contributions made to America by Muslims and the transgendered



PS SOME of us appreciate an excellent sense of humor!
 

Thread Tools

You are viewing a new design of the TOTV site. Click here to revert to the old version.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:46 PM.