DC Tom Posted November 30, 2010 Posted November 30, 2010 Interestingly amongst all this are the leaked documents to the effect that China's seemingly strong support of North Korea is really little more than telling them "Stop teasing your sister", and that they have no clue what's going on in NK's metaphorical head and kind-of wish they would just go away, even if it means unification under South Korean authority. Nice job, Assmange. In your unrealistic pollyanna "SETEC Astronomy" bull **** pacifist quest, you've managed to make a knock-down, drag-out fight-to-the-death on the Korean Peninsula that much more likely. Oh, and he's been nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize, too.
drnykterstein Posted November 30, 2010 Posted November 30, 2010 That's because this is the "most transparent administration" *NO ONE* is accusing Obama of being transparent.
DC Tom Posted November 30, 2010 Posted November 30, 2010 *NO ONE* is accusing Obama of being transparent. No, they're accusing him and Pelosi of going back on their word to make this administration a transparent one. Hope this little clarification helps. Try to keep up next time.
Magox Posted December 1, 2010 Posted December 1, 2010 Oh, and he's been nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize, too. Ahh, that it explains it
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted December 1, 2010 Posted December 1, 2010 Nice job, Assmange. In your unrealistic pollyanna "SETEC Astronomy" bull **** pacifist quest, you've managed to make a knock-down, drag-out fight-to-the-death on the Korean Peninsula that much more likely. Oh, and he's been nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize, too. well when you put it that way, makes perfect sense! irony.
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted December 1, 2010 Posted December 1, 2010 *NO ONE* is accusing Obama of being transparent. "let me be clear" I am just using the words that he pledged to the people... see - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/16/obamas-broken-promise-fed_n_500526.html (I even used a link that you will believe) "his administration was recommitted "to be the most open and transparent ever"
X. Benedict Posted December 1, 2010 Posted December 1, 2010 I know it has become fashionable of late for many people to call themselves Libertarian. Generally most Libertarians have been skeptical of most government secret classifications. This is true of CATO, the ACLU, and the Libertarian Party have all against State Secrets and state secret legislation as contrary to transparency. Up until now, groups such as the CATO Inst. have been pretty positive about Wiki-leaks. However, responses in the last week has been somewhat muted/guarded. Generally I'm interested in perspectives on this, as many people in this forum call themselves Libertarians. Any links would be helpful as well. Libertarians?
drnykterstein Posted December 1, 2010 Posted December 1, 2010 (edited) Generally most Libertarians have been skeptical of most government secret classifications. This is true of CATO, the ACLU, and the Libertarian Party have all against State Secrets and state secret legislation as contrary to transparency. The way I see it, Libertarians want freedoms and good open and honest fiscal policy, but don't hate Republicans (so they mostly vote R). Progressives want freedoms and good open and honest fiscal policy, but are completely repulsed by the Republican party (so they mostly vote D). Edited December 1, 2010 by conner
pBills Posted December 1, 2010 Posted December 1, 2010 That's because this is the "most transparent administration" Granted people will always blame the main person in charge... Obama. However as a whole this has nothing to do with him and his administration. Most of these security procedures were most likely put in place YEARS ago. Someone finally had the balls to break them from within, not listening to any warning they had received from the moment they were granted their security clearance.
Booster4324 Posted December 1, 2010 Posted December 1, 2010 (edited) Link The leaked cables make it impossible for Hillary Clinton to continue as secretary of state. No matter what sort of noises Clinton makes about how the disclosures are "an attack on America" and "the international community," as she did today, she's become the issue. She'll never be an effective negotiator with diplomats who refuse to forgive her exuberances, and even foreign diplomats who do forgive her will still regard her as the symbol of an overreaching United States. Diplomacy is about face, and the only way for other nations to save face will be to give them Clinton's scalp. What do you think? I hope she is done for. Edit - Link "Secretary Clinton is doing a great job," Gibbs said. "The president has great confidence in and admires the work that Secretary Clinton has done." Edited December 1, 2010 by Booster4324
pBills Posted December 1, 2010 Posted December 1, 2010 Link What do you think? I hope she is done for. Edit - Link I hope she stays on... she has done well.
Magox Posted December 1, 2010 Posted December 1, 2010 I'm ok with Clinton, I suspect that what she did was nothing out of the ordinary. To tell you the truth, I'd much rather of had her in as pres over the present clown in command.
IDBillzFan Posted December 1, 2010 Posted December 1, 2010 What do you think? I hope she is done for. I'm genuinely curious when I ask 'Why would you want her done?' In a long list of bubble-headed appointments, this seems to be one of the better ones. Granted, his motives for appointing her to SOS, I'm sure, had nothing to do with her qualifications, but she hasn't been anywhere near the disaster of an Eric Holder or Janet Napolitano. One area that Obama at least has earned some approval is foreign affairs, and that is in spite of the things he's failed to accomplish in the past two years. I'm no expert on that position, but I am curious as to why you'd want her gone.
Booster4324 Posted December 1, 2010 Posted December 1, 2010 I'm genuinely curious when I ask 'Why would you want her done?' In a long list of bubble-headed appointments, this seems to be one of the better ones. Granted, his motives for appointing her to SOS, I'm sure, had nothing to do with her qualifications, but she hasn't been anywhere near the disaster of an Eric Holder or Janet Napolitano. One area that Obama at least has earned some approval is foreign affairs, and that is in spite of the things he's failed to accomplish in the past two years. I'm no expert on that position, but I am curious as to why you'd want her gone. I just want her done. While I too would prefer her over Obama, I still pretty much think she is a complete slime. Oh and I am pretty sure diplomats spy on each other all the time, this is just a hopefully convenient excuse. Has nothing to do with the job she has done at State for me, I just want her out of politics.
DC Tom Posted December 1, 2010 Posted December 1, 2010 I just want her done. While I too would prefer her over Obama, I still pretty much think she is a complete slime. Oh and I am pretty sure diplomats spy on each other all the time, this is just a hopefully convenient excuse. Has nothing to do with the job she has done at State for me, I just want her out of politics. Pretty much the whole point of embassies is to collect information on other countries. Hell, as far as I know, every embassy has people whose sole and stated responsibilities are to spy on the host country. And Obama's foreign policy has pretty much been a hash of continuing Bush's post-Rumsfeld foreign policy while trying to present it as creating a whole new "kindler, gentler" foreign policy. Basically, this administration is putting on a clinic on how to follow a generally smart foreign policy while looking as bumbling as possible. And that, I blame completely on Clinton's vagina. Bill's, not Hillary's. She's still guilty by extension, though.
drnykterstein Posted December 1, 2010 Posted December 1, 2010 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVGqE726OAo
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 2, 2010 Posted December 2, 2010 (edited) Me personally... I think this is great that this stuff is exposed. I love the part about "our Friends" the Saudis urging the US to bomb Muslim brothers Iran. Sorry for the one letter mistake! Edited December 2, 2010 by ExiledInIllinois
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted December 2, 2010 Posted December 2, 2010 Me personally... I think this is great that this stuff is exposed. I love the part about "our Friends" the Saudis urging the US to bomb Muslim brothers Iran. Sorry for the one letter mistake! That is one of the more interesting twists i have seen so far. Gotta think the Saudi's are upset that is now public.. and on the flip side you have to wonder how Iran will handle that.
Booster4324 Posted December 2, 2010 Posted December 2, 2010 Me personally... I think this is great that this stuff is exposed. I love the part about "our Friends" the Saudis urging the US to bomb Muslim brothers Iran. Sorry for the one letter mistake! Fits right in with your general anarchist approach I suppose.
Recommended Posts