• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

POTUS Obama Reneges On Promise To Allow C-SPAN Access To Congress HC Negotiations?

Cicero said:
I was specific, but parky76 was not specific, and neither were you when you quoted parky76 in your post.
Click to expand...
No, me and you, and I suppose most people would think about the 9/11 Commission when reading that. You're just trying to change the subject to semantics because you're unable to admit you were wrong.
 
Cicero said:
You were not even aware of Gibbs parroting his old line again today. Where in Gibbs' comment does he say that his boss will live up to his campaign promise to C-SPAN?
Click to expand...

So you want Gibbs to say that Obama will use his Iron Fist of Fascism to ensure that the cameras are there, even if the Congress objects?

How about you let the thing pan out, and then we can talk about failures.
 
Peephole said:
Obama's promise on transparancy in health care negotiations was broken when he made a deal with Big Pharma
Click to expand...


Um, what? How does making a deal impact "transparency"?



ETA: That is, non-secret deals. The agreement with the pharmaceutical industry was made in public view, not some smoky back-room.
 
Last edited:
Cicero said:
Right. The head of the Democratic Party has zero influence with the Democrat majority in the House and Senate, the Democrat Speaker of the House and Democrat Majority leader.
Click to expand...

Ima bit paranoid, but he (B. Hussein Obama) couldn't get that "public option" in...so I don't think he can hide some cameras for Brian Lamb.

Good luck Cicero, on your quest for, "transparent politics". ;)

p.s. what's your handle @ FR? I'd like to read your posts there for reference.
 
Is it true that some wording in the Health-Care bill might entail using microchips implanted in people to store medical information on them?
 
INRM said:
Is it true that some wording in the Health-Care bill might entail using microchips implanted in people to store medical information on them?
Click to expand...

yes. it will be required of ALL Americans.

is this a problem for you?
 
Parky76,

Seriously, I remember hearing something about Subtitle C-11, Section 2521- "The National Medical Device Registry"...
 
INRM said:
Parky76,

Seriously, I remember hearing something about Subtitle C-11, Section 2521- "The National Medical Device Registry"...
Click to expand...

i am being serious. RFID chips will be implanted in all Americans. its a requirement in the Senate bill.

whats the problem?
 
INRM said:
Parky76,

Seriously, I remember hearing something about Subtitle C-11, Section 2521- "The National Medical Device Registry"...
Click to expand...

It seems you hear a lot of things that don't end up being true. A quick google pulled up, for example this, which talks about registration of medical devices, not medical devices to register humans.

Did you bother to look into this at all or did you just buy into the mountain of right-wing nuttery that I also found?
 
i still don't see the problem with all Americans being required to have a chip under their skin, with all their vital info, controlled by the government.
 
XBoxWarrior said:
Ima bit paranoid, but he (B. Hussein Obama) couldn't get that "public option" in...so I don't think he can hide some cameras for Brian Lamb.

Good luck Cicero, on your quest for, "transparent politics". ;)

p.s. what's your handle @ FR? I'd like to read your posts there for reference.
Click to expand...


You don't know the difference between "transparent politics" and transparency in government?

Are you still confused about what C-SPAN 3 is?

Having any luck propping up your lame claim that Brian Lamb is not what he appears to be and that he is playing politics?

Amazingly, you didn't mention the word "Muslim" in your post, but you need manage to work in "Hussein."

What is "@FR?"
 
Cicero said:
You really are clueless that the POTUS is head of their political party (not the chairman) as well as being the chief executive and commander-in-chief? You can't say you haven't learned something in this thread.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_is_the_head_of_a_political_party
Click to expand...
A two word uncited anonymous response on a web page that you could have just as easily put there yourself? Well, I'm convinced!

What duties does the President perform in his office as head of the political party? Does he run budget meetings? Does he stay up late drafting policy statements for the Democratic Party? How, exactly, do you conclude that the President is the head of his political party?

And while you are busy not backing up that claim, what new and unimaginitive way will you continue to avoid backing up your OP claim?
 
Well, in Cicero's defense I would submit that Obama is the most powerful Democrat and certainly holds a lot of sway within the Democratic party. Much like how Bill Clinton did back in the 90's. Nobody sees Howard Dean as wielding such power or Michael Steele. Typically political parties are led by the most influential or powerful one in their midst. The actual Chair of the party seems relegated to a more administrative role.
 
Upchurch said:
It seems you hear a lot of things that don't end up being true. A quick google pulled up, for example this, which talks about registration of medical devices, not medical devices to register humans.

Did you bother to look into this at all or did you just buy into the mountain of right-wing nuttery that I also found?
Click to expand...

First they came for the MRIs.
And I did not speak up, because I was not an MRI...
 
In the many years I worked in Congress, I don't remember the POTUS having the power to "promise" that Congress and reconciliations meetings would be open to the press. I'm not saying that they should or shouldn't be (though the sausage making rule applies to public interest in the actual functioning of a reconciliation meeting). However, while Obama may have said that the process should be open, he certainly has NO power -- NO PRESIDENT HAS EVER HAD THAT POWER -- over Congress to force that or make that...his opinion, in other words, is meaningless. He knew it. The reporters who heard it knew it. The commentators commenting on it knew it. What every you are mad about here, it is a nonsense point.

My recollection is that Conference Committee activities are completely under the control of the House and Senate, operate by House and Senate rules and the rule for the bill voted on the floor of each body. While the WH is involved from the stand point of trying to shape a final version of a bill that the President wants, or to try and avoid "veto bait" (not an issue here), the WH doesn't "control" the process or its atmospherics.

In short, complaining that Obama "renigged" on something he as president would never have any control over -- other by the moral power of saying government and congressional functions should be more transparent -- is really silly. If you want to compalin about lack of transparance, point to Pelosi and Reid...oh, and than go back and look at how the GOP managed conference committee meetings back when they controlled Congress...often not telling Democrat members of those committees where they were meeting. Again, not defending obvious hypocracy...but hypocracy is well distributed among all the parties to American politics -- in fact, they're addicted to it.
 
Lurker said:
Well, in Cicero's defense I would submit that Obama is the most powerful Democrat and certainly holds a lot of sway within the Democratic party. Much like how Bill Clinton did back in the 90's. Nobody sees Howard Dean as wielding such power or Michael Steele. Typically political parties are led by the most influential or powerful one in their midst. The actual Chair of the party seems relegated to a more administrative role.
Click to expand...

Yep...but NO Speaker or Senate Leader would give up that power. period (IMO). Indeed, when they do, we'd better start worrying about the "socialism" and "facism" that the teabaggers complain about. We will than have a completely rubber-stamp Congress...not unlike what we had for the first six years of the Bush Administration, and look how well that did by America.
 
headscratcher4 said:
Yep...but NO Speaker or Senate Leader would give up that power. period (IMO). Indeed, when they do, we'd better start worrying about the "socialism" and "facism" that the teabaggers complain about. We will than have a completely rubber-stamp Congress...not unlike what we had for the first six years of the Bush Administration, and look how well that did by America.
Click to expand...
Oh, I never meant to imply that Obama had the power to open up Congressional meetings to the cameras. I only addressed the concept of party leadership.

What I find a little humorous over this tempest in a teapot is that if Obama were somehow successful in using his clout to sway Congress to open their meetings to the cameras then we would see conservatives complaining about Obama's dictatorial tendencies and that he does not respect the separation of powers that our founding fathers created.
 
Upchurch said:
A two word uncited anonymous response on a web page that you could have just as easily put there yourself? Well, I'm convinced!
Click to expand...
I forgot the obvious question: does this mean there is no head of the Republican Party or is Obama, being the President, head of that too?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom