What's new
By:
Guest viewing is limited

Design My Sites CSS

R

Reverse

New Talker
PF Member
Messages
6
Highlights
0
Reaction score
0
Points
33
Peak Coin
0.000000¢
DB Transfer
0.000000¢
.navbar {background-color: #fff;}

.headerbar {
background-color: #12A3EB;
background-image: url("http://i32.servimg.com/u/f32/14/52/65/41/header10.png");
height: 100px;
margin-left: -15px;
margin-right: -15px;
color: #FFFFFF;
}

#page-header .navbar {
background-image: url("http://i55.tinypic.com/2yo3gxj.png");
padding:0px 10px;
height: 51px;
margin-top: -4px;
margin-left: -15px;
margin-right: -15px;
}

.forabg, .forumbg {
background-color: #0f528f;
background-image: url("http://i32.servimg.com/u/f32/14/52/65/41/dew10.png");
}

.navbar .corners-top ,.navbar .corners-bottom {display:none;}

.headerbar .corners-bottom ,.headerbar .corners-bottom {display:none;}

.headerbar .corners-top ,.headerbar .corners-top {display:none;}

#page-header #search-box {
display: none;
}

.navbar ul {
border : none;
}

ul.navlinks span.new-message {
color: #e2004a;
padding-left: 2em;
background: transparent url('http://illiweb.com/fa/email.gif') no-repeat top left;
}

#logo{
float: left !important;
margin-top: 10px;
margin-right: -35px;
padding: 0;}

body {
color: #094c8a;
background-color: #b4b4b4;
font-family: Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif;
font-size: 11px;
height: 100%;
}

body {
background-image: url(http://i51.tinypic.com/11w59b6.png);
background-repeat: repeat-x;
margin-top: 3px;
}

.content {
color: #333333;
font-family: Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif;
font-size: 12px !important;
}

a.forumtitle {
color: #0f5493;
font-family: Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif;
font-weight: bold;
font-size: 14px;
letter-spacing: -0.5px;
}

a.forumtitle:visited { color: #105289; }

a.forumtitle:hover {
color: #1472c9;
}

a.forumtitle:active {
color: #197edc;
}

a.topictitle {
color: #105289;
font-size: 13px;
font-family: Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif;
}

a.topictitle:hover {
color: #1472C9;
}

#wrap {
padding: 0 15px;
width: 936px;
margin: 0 auto;
margin-bottom: -50px; !important;
margin-top: -13px;
}

blockquote, blockquote blockquote, blockquote blockquote blockquote {
border-color: #9fd1ff;
background-color: #f9f9f9;
-moz-border-radius: 3px;
-webkit-border-radius: 3px;
}


li.row {
border-top-color solid #FFFFFF;
border: 1px solid #00608f;
border-bottom-color: #FFFFFF;
border-top-style: none;
border-style: dotted;
border-left-style: none;
border-right-style: none;
background-color: #e1ecf7;
}

li.row:hover dd {
border-left-color: #CCCCCC;
}

li.row:hover {
background-color: #f5f9fb;
}

.row dl dd.dterm {
border-left: none;
}

h3,.h3{
font-family: Arial, sans-serif;
font-weight: bold;
text-transform: uppercase;
margin-bottom: 3px;
padding-bottom: 2px;
font-size: 1. 10em;
color: #115098;
margin-top: 20px;
}

.table-title, .table-title h2{
font-family: "Verdana";
font-weight: bold;
font-variant: small-caps;
font-variant : sVariant;
font-family: Arial;
font-size: 12px;
color: #096fb5;
-moz-border-radius: 3px;
-webkit-border-radius: 3px;
background-color: #fff;
padding: 2px;}
.table-title, .table-title h2:hover{color: #096fb5;
}

.navbar {
color: #0870d1;
font-weight: bold;
font-family: "Verdana";
font-variant: small-caps;
font-variant : sVariant;
font-family: Arial;
font-size: 11px;
text-transform: uppercase;
letter-spacing: -0.5px;
}

.navbar a:hover {
text-decoration: none;
color: #0a8ee6;
}

.navbar img {vertical-align: middle; margin-top: -2px; margin-right: 1px;}

.postbody {
color: #333333;
}

.postprofile {
color: #003366;
border-left-color: #b7d1e3;
}

select {
border-color: #95D5FF;
background-color: #EDF8FF;;
color: #174764;
}

.inputbox {
background-color: #FFFFFF;
border-color: #B4BAC0;
color: #333333;
}

.inputbox:hover {
border-color: #11A3EA;
}

.inputbox:focus {
border-color: #11A3EA;
color: #0F4987;
}

.post {
border: 1px solid ;
border-color: #b1d5ee;
}


.inputbox {
background-color: #fff;
border-color: #b4bac0;
color: #333333;
}

.inputbox:hover {
border-color: #11a3ea;
}

.inputbox:focus {
border-color: #b4bac0;
color: #333333;
}

button.button2, input.button2{
background: #f9c8da url(http://i32.servimg.com/u/f32/14/52/65/41/butoon10.png);
font-weight: bold;
padding: 2px;
-moz-border-radius: 2px;
-webkit-boreder-radius: 2px;
}
 
Justice Department Condemned Zimmerman before trial.

It would seem our good boy Eric Holder at the Justice Department had major playing in things that happened in and around Sanford, FL after the shooting of Trayvon Martin.
It would seem from documents JW (Judicial Watch) has obtained a section within the DOJ was out and about convincing other of Zimmerman's Guilt. That section was The Department of Community Relations Services. It seems this department helped stage protests against Zimmerman. As well as playing a big role in the Sanford Police Chiefs resignation. As well as setting up meeting between local government officials and the NAACP.
The department is not suppose to play a role other then to mediate between parties if need be. Though the evidence which are the documents obtained through the FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) tell a different story.
If this is the case which is how it seems that would throw out Innocent until Proven Guilty. It would show the administration tipping the racial divide in favor of a group of people. When it is to stay impartial like the rest of us.
Here is the article read if you want to learn more.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/353230/obamas-alinskyite-administration-john-fund
 
barbarap said:
Another viewpoint...

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3580062?utm_hp_ref=politics
Click to expand...
Here are the documents. Answer me this if the what the Huffington Post says is true why redact the information? It shows me they don't want the public to know what is going on. The emails I have not gotten all through there is 792 pages worth of them. The problem with this is Obama shows no transparency. Though I did read your article very interesting.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/151071221/More-Working-Rallies-on-MAR-25
 
Chris, when it comes to politics, there are three sides to every story... The conservative side, the liberal side, and the truth, which generally lies somewhere in the middle.
I only offer the link as another viewpoint.

As for transparency in the Obama administration, you would have to give me specific examples of where you think the transparency is lacking. I have worked with gov funding for nearly twenty years under both republican and democratic administrations, and from where I sit, the expenditures of taxpayer dollars has never been scrutinized as closely in the past as they have been since Obama took office.

Just to let you know, I am not a democrat and Obama wasn't my first choice for president. I'm not saying this to defend him or his party, I'm just saying this is how it looks to me.
 
barbarap said:
Chris, when it comes to politics, there are three sides to every story... The conservative side, the liberal side, and the truth, which generally lies somewhere in the middle.
I only offer the link as another viewpoint.

As for transparency in the Obama administration, you would have to give me specific examples of where you think the transparency is lacking. I have worked with gov funding for nearly twenty years under both republican and democratic administrations, and from where I sit, the expenditures of taxpayer dollars has never been scrutinized as closely in the past as they have been since Obama took office.

Just to let you know, I am not a democrat and Obama wasn't my first choice for president. I'm not saying this to defend him or his party, I'm just saying this is how it looks to me.
Click to expand...
Oh I am not saying you are not. I also agree with you on the three sides. My point is they want to spin the article which I agree both articles spin the story. I won't post a story unless I have researched it myself which is what I did before posting. Redacting information only shows you don't want people to know something.

Transparency I can give you several IRS, NSA, EPA. I won't use Benghazi like most because I don't believe there was more to it other then a lack of getting their crap together. I can't blame this administration much more then to say they were stupid in the matter just as the Bush administration was stupid in following the clues for 9/11.

Not say you did lol no worries. I don't like either party though I am Conservative in my view I don't like Republicans much other then a few. I voted Ron Paul each time he ran. In another thread I told everyone who I voted for this election which was neither candidate. I side mostly with the Tea Party though I don't agree with everything they do nor who they stand behind. Example the last Presidential election.

I read NR because it is the fairest on most issues as far as Conservative Magazines go. Though I think they were wrong backing Romney.

I am not upset by any means. I enjoy debating politics :D .
 
I enjoy debating politics too and look forward with some spirited discussions with you.

Hard to find any media that doesn't put their own spin on things. I try to read many sources and sift through the spin to find the facts. It can be a challenge.

I'm sure there are areas of transparency that can be improved in the IRS, NSA, and EPA.... And finding specific examples of knowingly keeping information from the public is subject to the flaws of humans in general.
But, overall.... When it comes to transparency... This administration is far more transparent than any other based on my personal experience.
 
barbarap said:
I enjoy debating politics too and look forward with some spirited discussions with you.

Hard to find any media that doesn't put their own spin on things. I try to read many sources and sift through the spin to find the facts. It can be a challenge.

I'm sure there are areas of transparency that can be improved in the IRS, NSA, and EPA.... And finding specific examples of knowingly keeping information from the public is subject to the flaws of humans in general.
But, overall.... When it comes to transparency... This administration is far more transparent than any other based on my personal experience.
Click to expand...
You are right even National Review which I personally subscribe to put spin on some of there articles. Though I take it with a grain of salt and do research myself from other sources. Though NR is the fairest of the Conservative magazines.
The best left leaning magazine is USA today.
The fairest source is Reuters.

I look forward to our conversation as well.

As far as transparency I have not seen any that I am aware of thus far. Though if you look at who is in this administration there are a lot of former Clinton administration workers. Clinton administration was not all that transparent either. It took a lot of fighting to get information released by their administration. Even then when brought up by JW at the time the administration stonewalled efforts to learn the truth.

I have yet to see or read about a transparent administration. The last semi-transparent administration was Reagan. I use the words semi-transparent loosely.
 
Chris, we seem to be viewing transparency through different lens.

I see it on a very personal level since my job involves working with federal money.

There is a lot more accountability for expenditures, restrictions on how funding can be used, and a shift to concrete outcomes.

Its a lot more work, but I don't mind. I think the changes are good.
 
barbarap said:
Chris, we seem to be viewing transparency through different lens.

I see it on a very personal level since my job involves working with federal money.

There is a lot more accountability for expenditures, restrictions on how funding can be used, and a shift to concrete outcomes.

Its a lot more work, but I don't mind. I think the changes are good.
Click to expand...

I study the government day in and day out. I am going to school for Poly Sci. I see transparency as letting the people know what their government does for them. Why decisions are made when people ask the questions. I don't see that from our government.
 
Chris said:
I study the government day in and day out. I am going to school for Poly Sci. I see transparency as letting the people know what their government does for them. Why decisions are made when people ask the questions. I don't see that from our government.
Click to expand...


Can you give me some specific examples?
 
Lets take bills that are introduced into the house and Senate. They adapt the numbers so the bill looks better then it actually is. The CBO only goes by the numbers provided to them in the bills. These bills are known to be slanted by both parties to make them look good. When in fact all the numbers are not included in the bill. This is non transparency.
The CBO in fact should in some form be able to look more deeply in the bill for errors in the fiscal end of a bill. Which at this point they are not.

Social Security let us take that fiasco. One side say we are screwed the other side says we are not that bad off. When in fact if you do your research SSI is on a course of destruction if it is not tended to soon and if it is not already to late.

The government is not so transparent with its budget for a fiscal year. They are suppose to by law provide the taxpayer a sort of summary on how they plan on spending our taxes. Most politicians have even broached on this subject such as Ron Paul, Rand Paul, and Michelle Bachman they are a few names. The government is no so transparent in how they spend our money when in truth they are suppose to be showing us.

These are but a few I could give specifics per administration from Kennedy till Obama if you want specifics as it goes with administration non transparency.
 
Chris said:
Lets take bills that are introduced into the house and Senate. They adapt the numbers so the bill looks better then it actually is. The CBO only goes by the numbers provided to them in the bills. These bills are known to be slanted by both parties to make them look good. When in fact all the numbers are not included in the bill. This is non transparency.
The CBO in fact should in some form be able to look more deeply in the bill for errors in the fiscal end of a bill. Which at this point they are not.

Social Security let us take that fiasco. One side say we are screwed the other side says we are not that bad off. When in fact if you do your research SSI is on a course of destruction if it is not tended to soon and if it is not already to late.

The government is not so transparent with its budget for a fiscal year. They are suppose to by law provide the taxpayer a sort of summary on how they plan on spending our taxes. Most politicians have even broached on this subject such as Ron Paul, Rand Paul, and Michelle Bachman they are a few names. The government is no so transparent in how they spend our money when in truth they are suppose to be showing us.

These are but a few I could give specifics per administration from Kennedy till Obama if you want specifics as it goes with administration non transparency.
Click to expand...


Regarding the bills introduced in congress.... All bills and their content are available to read for anyone. The easiest way for the public to access them is by Internet. That bills include provisions that benefit either party didn't start with Obama. This has been going on since forever.

As for social security, we've been hearing that we will be screwed for decades now. This issue is not new with the Obama administration. The crux behind this issue is really the coming of age of the baby boomers.

As for the budget.... Again, the public has access to the entire document. It is available on the Internet.

And, the gov does provide the public the chance to review the expenditures of gov money. The gov is required to have public input for expenditures. In many cases, public hearings are held where the expenditure is explained and the public can voice their opinion. In other cases, the public is asked to vote on a particular expenditure.

Like I said before, having worked with federal funding for nearly twenty years, my personal experience has been that this administration is the most transparent administration I have seen.

There is more accountability for expenditures, more restrictions on how funding is used and a shift to performance outcomes.
 
barbarap said:
Regarding the bills introduced in congress.... All bills and their content are available to read for anyone. The easiest way for the public to access them is by Internet. That bills include provisions that benefit either party didn't start with Obama. This has been going on since forever.

As for social security, we've been hearing that we will be screwed for decades now. This issue is not new with the Obama administration. The crux behind this issue is really the coming of age of the baby boomers.

As for the budget.... Again, the public has access to the entire document. It is available on the Internet.

And, the gov does provide the public the chance to review the expenditures of gov money. The gov is required to have public input for expenditures. In many cases, public hearings are held where the expenditure is explained and the public can voice their opinion. In other cases, the public is asked to vote on a particular expenditure.

Like I said before, having worked with federal funding for nearly twenty years, my personal experience has been that this administration is the most transparent administration I have seen.

There is more accountability for expenditures, more restrictions on how funding is used and a shift to performance outcomes.
Click to expand...
I know they are available to read that is not my point. My point is that whoever creates the bill fudges the numbers or intentionally does not included figures for future expenditures. Those numbers are left out conveniently to garner support for it.

SSI yes is screwed not denying that. Though both sides can't seem to get a handle on what the problem is.

The entire budget is not readily available on line on portions of it are available.

Where has the Fed had public hearing with citizens in the hearing able to voice their opinion or concerns? I would agree on the local level yes this does happen. I would have to say not so much on the state or federal level.
 
Chris said:
I know they are available to read that is not my point. My point is that whoever creates the bill fudges the numbers or intentionally does not included figures for future expenditures. Those numbers are left out conveniently to garner support for it.

SSI yes is screwed not denying that. Though both sides can't seem to get a handle on what the problem is.

The entire budget is not readily available on line on portions of it are available.

Where has the Fed had public hearing with citizens in the hearing able to voice their opinion or concerns? I would agree on the local level yes this does happen. I would have to say not so much on the state or federal level.
Click to expand...


It's true that when bills are written they are done so in a way that sheds the best light on them to get support. But, this is the nature of the beast and typical of political posturing. Hardly new to this administration.

I'm not as pessimistic as you regarding the status of social security. However, I agree that neither party is doing much to get a handle on things in that area.

Federal public hearings are a bit more challenging to find out about. Often times they are included as part of a bigger conference type event. And, for the average person, travel to this events is not always practical.

I have, though, been involved in providing citizen feed back via Internet but, I'm not sure how widely this method is used. Perhaps it is something that will be developed further.
 
barbarap said:
It's true that when bills are written they are done so in a way that sheds the best light on them to get support. But, this is the nature of the beast and typical of political posturing. Hardly new to this administration.

I'm not as pessimistic as you regarding the status of social security. However, I agree that neither party is doing much to get a handle on things in that area.

Federal public hearings are a bit more challenging to find out about. Often times they are included as part of a bigger conference type event. And, for the average person, travel to this events is not always practical.

I have, though, been involved in providing citizen feed back via Internet but, I'm not sure how widely this method is used. Perhaps it is something that will be developed further.
Click to expand...
Which is not being fully transparent correct?

Oh I think it could be fixed if both parties would work together. I don't think it is a lost cause. Though my pessimism is in both parties coming together to work it out.

In reality I don't believe the public are allowed in most hearing or session of Congress, or the Senate unless invited to speak by a Representative.

I am one who thinks bills should be the peoples right to have final say on. If we want and SSI bill that fixes SSI we should be allowed to vote on it. It is one things at this point in time to allow officials the full right to vote on this because most can't agree to disagree. Though I think most issues belong at the state level and not the Federal level.
 
Chris said:
Which is not being fully transparent correct?
.
Click to expand...

But, your initial assertion was that it was the Obama administration which was not being transparent, and by implication, deliberately.

My point is that there has never been much transparency when it comes to politics.... Ever.
My experience has been that there is more transparency in this administration than there has been in the past. Having worked with gov funding for nearly twenty years, currently, there is more accountability on expenditures with fed funding, more restrictions on how fed money can be spent, and a shift to performance outcomes.
 
Chris said:
In reality I don't believe the public are allowed in most hearing or session of Congress, or the Senate unless invited to speak by a Representative.

.
Click to expand...

Unless it is a closed session, the public is welcome.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top