Smart , and popular, such a great grading sliding scale system for the most important office of the land? The most cunning ,and decietful, are lauded smart, and popular, mabey in the gungle hunting prey, i say it's just more of the same packaged a little different, again

Can someone help me out here and decipher what Al is trying to relay?

From the sound of it he went to the Sarah Palin school of journalism... you betcha also too...

The let me make it easier to understand, I don't think it is smart or popular to continue on the same road of lies , and deciect that got us here in the first place, where is the real change that was promised? So because i think things arent right i'm a tea bagger or something?

Hey Feisty - I remember when we had Hobos before Ronny Raygunz turned them into a whole new class of people - the Homeless. The Homeless are the true legacy of Alzheimer-addled Ronny Raygunz, as is the Reagan, Bush Bush National Debt.

Let's not forget the term Hobo was coined around the 1920's or 1930's thanks to what repugnant one Herbert Hoover did to wreck the economy and bring about the Great Depression because he cut taxes for the rich and greedy too much.

Hooverville Herbert Hoover Created the Hobos, Ronny Raygunz Created the Homeless!

Hi Feisty,

And where are the Repugs gathering?? I do not believe anything from the NYT. It appears they (the people across the aisle) are really running low on material.

I'm guessing the repugs are gathering in a church some where. Handling rattle snakes. And speaking in tounges. And fainting. And making fun of people that care about "God's green earth". And being stupid. And asking God for more money. And asking God to be a REAL christian, and hate homosexuals.

Eric - Retired & Drive-By thanks for the laugh... you each get my vote! :0))

Feisty - going to Starbucks - isn't that helping the economy?? Buying coffee and pastries!!!

Yes it is Elise... but you know us damn elitest Democrats... we're not into the Dunkin Donuts kinda crowd! :0))

Lobbying is part of the culture. Most of it is villified based on shady outcomes and pork barrel spending. But there are also those that lobby for teachers, pensions, benefits and other . It's not a perfect science and I'm not praising it but to do away with it would affect many livelihoods.

Oh so lobbying is ok as long as you agree with it, right?

Doing away with it would at least create a level playing field that maybe we could discuss the issues.

Sorry louis, even though lobbying may help some people genuinely in need to get certain concessions...it ultimately is the downfall of democracy. One person, one voice. There is no way for any lobbying group to prove that they rightfully speak for 100% of their contributors. That is exactly why money should not equal voice.

If people want their voice heard, they can organize. Have people write individual letters and make phone calls.

Being a left leaning independent, I am ready to say no lobbying whatsoever, even though it would effect teachers, and unions...because I know it will save us from Trillions in no bid contracts and corruption...we lobby with our vote, not our pocketbook.

Until lobbying is deemed bribery(which is what it is) and a sensible individual campaign contribution cap (my suggestion would be 10% of the annual poverty rate or roughly 2500.00) are in put in place, America will continue it's downward spiral into bankruptcy and obscurity.

This goes for both side of the aisle, because they are both doing it. It's like saying "well everyone else is taking steroids so I do to in order to compete".

Sorry, can't 'do away' with lobbying

It's a constitutional right to be able to seek redress of grieviences .. We DO have too many corporate lobbyists ... we should have a 'cooling off' period of several years for Administration members and Congressional members and staffers

DON'T MAKE PROMISES you CAN'T KEEP ... don't promise 'openess' unless you're really committed No excuse for that

Nobody is talking about taking away that right...

If we take the lucrative business out of lobbying, there will be less paid lobbyists in washington.

Maybe it would come down to campaign contribution reform.

No, John. The point is, Obama ran on the promise that he would make these meetings "transparent". And now he is doing stuff to skirt his own promise.

Rob, when the Cheney gang of oil moguls and thieves show us what they agreed to, when they met in secret regarding the state of the oil industry and how they could they could screw the American people, maybe then, you will be in a better position to criticize.

You have got to be kidding me - this is PRETTY DAMAGING? What about Boehner meeting health insurance and Wall Street corporate executives for dinner. That's not PRETTY DAMAGING?

Now you 've gone & done it Elise...

You'll never get Jill to shut up - BTW - she ALWAYS has to have the last word in case you didn't know! :0)

Elise and Feisty: Don't forget Cheney's secret meetings in 2001 with the oil companies. By the way Feisty, if you chat with Anita...tell her hi for me!

Will do! She'll be back next week - drop in over on the vine and I'll tell ya about it :0)

I better check out the Vine site. Haven't done that yet.

Elise, yes, it is (or should be) pretty damaging. You have a guy (Obama) who campaigned and was elected on the premise that he was going to be transparent and open. Yet, this same guy, instead of being open and transparent about who he and/or his aides are meeting with, is, instead, meeting in coffee shops to avoid having to disclose with whom he and/or his aides are meeting. How is that NOT an issue for you guys?

So if I understand this right, the Republicans had secret meetings and did not disclose them (both content and participants), and we all agree that is bad.

Democrates said how terrible that was, and pledged to be open and honest to the people of America, but ended up doing the EXACT SAME THING,

And somehow that is not considered WORSE???

I guess he gets a free pass too if we start another war.

Jill, if only the Obama administration had done something like this http://www.recovery.gov/Pages/home.aspx . They've already opened up the WH visitors log, a point on which their predecessors claimed Executive Privilege. Perhaps something happened to convince people there was a need for more transparency. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bush_administration_fetish_for_government_secrecy

I wish I could have edited my previous comment. What Conservatives are actually saying is "This Administration is WAY more transparent than the ours and it's STILL not enough!"

John, you still fail to get my point. This is not about comparing Obama to Bush or any other President. He said he was going to rid Washington of the influence of corporate lobbyists (which I knew he wouldn't be able to do) and provide a more transparent government. I guess what will really be interesting to see is if, on the campaign trail in 2012, he says that he's reduced the influence of lobbyists and points to fewer lobbyist visits to the WH...

And, John, it's not conservatives that are saying this....it's the freaking NY Times. And it wouldn't be an issue if Obama himself hadn't made it such a huge part of his campaign.

So is this a discussion about who is the most hypocritical? Looks like everybody wins!

So I just want to get this straight: we are complaining because some in the Obama administration are having "secret" meetings in public places?

Nothing but pablum for the American public!

No effective regulation of Auto Dealers!

No effective regulation of Payday loans!...Passed to the states

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Not addressed.

To name a few.

So tell me, who are theses people? Who did they meet, what companies did they represent? Who had access to whom? And most importantly how much money did they contribute?

Again why are these "meetings" and negotiations behind closed doors.

Did you get my response? Laura and the Capitol Building are speculative nonsense. Do you actually believe that NO TRUTHS ARE BEING HIDDEN FROM YOU?

Paul, I saw the video tape; she was in the Capitol Building; they had to cancel her meeting. Conspiracy theorists refuse to look at hard evidence and I have no patience with them. JFK conspiracy theories have been going on for decades. The facts and evidence have been right in front of our eyes forever.

Laura being in the Capitol was never in dispute, Pat. How it relates to whether George planned 9/11, or not, is not a fact or proof of anything. Did you not get the information in my previous post that GHWbush was not flying on 9/11 morning he was meeting with S.Bin Laden in D.C.

And every interaction between a politician and a lobbyist should be required to be recorded.

That would be fine by me that would help indicate just how much influence they have. While were at it, a coffee shop is fine, it is in public view and the setting lends itself to a modicum of transparency, no closed door double secret probation skull and crossbones meetings.

I'm shocked and amazed to agree with Paul. Unfortunately we're currently stuck with a system which gives nearly free rein to lobbyists, one which is fatally flawed by the insane concept that money is speech. I also agree with Forrest. You'd be hard pressed to make a really corrupt deal in a coffee shop, a place where you never know who will see and hear you. I call it less than ideal but hardly the downfall of civilization.

What do you think this proves?

If anything it appears to prove that you too, like Bill Fairfax, can't keep the facts straight. She was on her way to the RUSSELL BUILDING not the "Capitol building". But none of that proves anything to refute that the concrete floors in the twin towers were turned into microfine dust by something much stronger than fire and gravity. Why am I so able to catch each of your mistakes if you know what you are talking about?

Paul, you're not getting me on board with your "theories". I had seen some of these "truthers" on tv in 2006 and it was pretty obvious listening to them, that they were out to lunch on this. Pretty despicable actually. Especially in memory of those who died.

We have military in Afghanistan for a reason. Osama Bin Laden is in hiding for a reason.

She was on her way to the RUSSELL BUILDING not the "Capitol building".

That is correct and if I was afraid of being "incorrect" I wouldn't have brought it to your attention, now would I?

btw, this is my last comment on this subject.

Reread what you posted. You told the world she was in the Capitol Building and if George had planned to have the Capitol Building attacked he never would have put poor Laura in such jeopardy and therefore he couldn't have planned 9/11...blah..bla...blather. Then you say you saw the video tape of her in the "capitol building" WHICH SHE WAS NOT!. Perhaps you are impatient with conspiracy theorists because you object to people who have a penchant for keeping facts straight in their heads. It's all so silly to think that George "The reactor" had anything to do with the plans of "the actor" Dick Cheney on 9/11.

The chances are quite good that if a plane is going to crash into the Capitol Bldg., then all those buildings around it are going to affected. Anyone up there on the Hill during an attack is going to be affected, not just the building itself that gets hit. We saw that in NYC. She left the White House as the first plane hit, heading to the Hill, where supposedly one of the planes was headed. That was my point. I disliked Cheney/Bush's policies as much as anyone, but to put this attack on them is assisine and takes away from all the other acts they pursued in the name of "War on Terror".

I'm sorry Paul, really I am, but this subject is too ridiculous to continue.

Typical. You saw "truthers" on tv and they were dispicable? How open minded of you. The MSM has no interest in having their investigative failings pointed out to the world. TRUTHERS are never going to get a fair shake on the t.v. machine. Just ask Dr. Steven Jones how Tucker Carlson treated him. Are you aware that a Federal Judge ruled that the News media has every right to outright lie to you and me? You don't need to leave this country Pat, the country has already left you.

Why do you try to make "POINTS" by getting your FACTS wrong. This is illogical. If the Capitol building isn't safe and the Russell building isn't safe, what makes the Whitehouse safe if the Pentagon isn't safe? Please try to answer just two of my questions before you run away and hide your intellect.

Pat, Paul is not trying to say that Bush knew this attack was coming? Please tell me he isn't trying to say that. I haven't followed this thread at all. Puts me in mind of the people that that that FDR knew about the attack on Pearl Harbor and let that happen. Where does this stuff come from?

newday

At Princeton they teach a history course that lays out fairly convincingly that FDR did indeed know that the Japanese would attack us at Pearl Harbor. The Jap fleet had sailed out of harbor six days earlier, we had interrupted their island nation's access to oil, we had killed their countrymen in China, it was pretty obvious where they would take more than five days to sail to if they wanted to hit us, radar picked up the wave of bombers coming in from the north, a jap sub was sunk trying to enter Pearl before the jap planes ever got there. How much of a surprise could this infamous attack have actually been? Oh and we had broken both their diplomatic and military codes, so we were reading their mail prior. And isn't curious that they never dropped one single bomb on our OIL STORAGE facilities. Without oil any of our remaining ships at Pearl would have been useless for six months.

Sorry, Paul, but the old saw about FDR is simply not true. To believe it, you have to agree that he wanted to go to war with Japan so badly that he was willing to sacrifice the fleet to have that happen...the fleet that he would need to fight that war . This is an old urban legend based on the idea that we had broken some codes that Japan used and ergo we knew that attack was coming. There were codes broken at that time, but they were diplomatic codes, and what FDR often knew is what negotiation the Japanese were going to enter into. But, the diplomatic corp was not privy to the Japanese war office plans and there was not pre knowledge. FDR had the same sort of right wing detractors in his time that President Obama does now, and that is how that story gained traction. As to Princeton? I have no idea if that is true or not, or what the goal of the course would be. Simply saying that a course was taught about this at an Ivy League University does not lend credence to the rumor.

And the radar and the sub being sunk weren't a headsup? And you think it was coincidental that our best ships were out at sea but out of position to defend Pearl. And no one had ever suggested that if we don't know where the jap fleet is we should set up a defensive picket line perimeter for early detection.

You asked ,"Where does this stuff come from?". I tell you where and then you ask about the motivation of the class!?!? Then you speculate that it isn't true. Biased much? DO YOU THINK THAT NO TRUTHS ARE BEING HIDDEN FROM YOU?

Just answer that simple question ,please.

Paul, you would do well to not look for conspiracies were none exist. You are wrong about FDR, and you are buying into that mindset that has kept that story alive all this time. Pearl Harbor was attacked by planes, and we had planes that got into the air to defend the Harbor. I am thinking that the people who died on those ships would disagree with your assessment that our best ships were out at sea, that too is part of that old story about Pearl Harbor. Do I think things are hidden from us? I think there is information that we are not privy to due to Nat'l Security concerns. Do I think we know the basic story? Yes, I do. And no matter how much you dislike either FDR or Bush, (and I thought Bush was probably the worst President of my lifetime) I do not believe that either of them were complicit in either attack. One more thing, Paul, about college classes. I taught at the college level, I had a kid at Harvard. There are lots of classes taught. If there was a class at Princeton (which you have provided no evidence that there is) that FDR knew about that attack, it does matter what the goals of that class were. Is it possible that there is a Prof with a conspiracy bent teaching that nonsense. I suppose. But it is more likely that such a class was taught because it diffuses the theory. Though, come to think of it, FDR was a Harvard man, maybe Princeton still resents that.

Thankyou for answering my question. I admire FDR, i still believe that Pearl Harbor was no surprise to him. Even if it were, the sub sinking and the radar warning should have resulted in the men dying in "battle" on our ships having had a fighting chance to defend themselves rather than dying below decks. All of our aircraft carriers were out to sea and curiously out of position to defend Pearl or launch a counterattack. How could this be if we knew the Japanese fleet had left port six days earlier? Do you not understand basic defensive measures? If you don't know for certain where your potential enemy is going, you set up defensive perimeters, trip wires of a sort, around your outposts. You sacrifice the few to protect the many. Every trip wire warning was ignored.

Our having broken the Japanese military code is one of the National security secrets which is being HIDDEN FROM YOU.

If we had broken the Japanese military code, Paul, that war would have ended far sooner than it did. But, it would also be hidden from you, unless you have some access you aren't telling me about. As to Princeton and that course, I am trying to explain to you that there are lots of courses taught, and that perhaps this one was (which you still haven't provided any evidence to support) it does not mean that FDR actually knew about this. The key to this is Paul, that if we were to go to war with Japan, by golly we needed those ships. Why would FDR allow that to happen to equipment that he needed, much less the loss of life. When you teach a college class, you are required to provide a syllabus, that syllabus states what the student will learn, and what the profs goals are. I have written many in my lifetime. It does matter why the course was taught Paul, if indeed it was.

There is one more thing that is important for you to understand about Profs and college classes. When you teach at a college or University, you have absolute academic freedom to teach that class as you see fit. The college or university won't interfere in that, though you may eventually get fired if you go completely off the track. If such a course was taught, it does not mean that Princeton University leadership agreed with the content. But, thank you for the civil discussion. With what has gone on this week on this board, it is rare indeed to disagree with someone so agreeably.

We didn't want the war to end early. The ships we lost for the most part were outdated. The fledgling military-indusrtial-complex needed the boost of an extended engagement, otherwise we would have sunk the entire Japanese carrie fleet while their planes were bombing Pearl. Are you ever going to acknowledge the submarine being sunk prior to any bombs dropping on Pearl harbor? Do you not understand what that would signal to any commander who hadn't been ordered to stand down?

Paul, it was the diplomatic code, not the military code. In fact as one of the most recognized events and greatest military disasters in American history the attack on Pearl Harbor has been studied, dissected, analyzed beyond belief. I don't suppose you're interested in debunking your conspiracy theories, but what say you about this http://ibiblio.org/pha/myths/index.html and this http://www.rememberingpearlharbor.org/myths.html ?

John B.

DO YOU BELIEVE THAT NOTHING IS BEING HIDDEN FROM YOU?

The diplomatic code being the only code broken is the cover story.

The breaking of the Military code is still a NATIONAL SECURITY SECRET, it therefore can not be studied.

Paul: I see you are still passionate to discuss this. There was one old battleship there, if memory serves, The Utah. The Arizona and Oklahoma were certainly not considered to be old or unusable. You are conflating too many things and having to work too hard to come up with a workable theory. The tenor of the times were that Japan thought itself invincible, due to their worship of the Emperor. Japan absolutely thought that it could sink those ships and that would allow them to continue their Empire expansion. Perhaps John B remembers, because I can't recall, who the Japanese military leader was that said paraphrasing "we have awakened a sleeping giant." He was the ONLY one that fully understood the seriousness of what they had done. But, facts are pesky things, and you can Google and find information released from Japan's archives about this attack. It originated in Japan, and they were very proud of leaving their diplomatic corps out of this decision. FDR had no foreknowledge, if he had known, do you not think that he would have moved heaven and earth to save lives? And again, Paul, I understand that you feel strongly about this, but if the Military Code is still a National Security secret, then you can have no data to support what you claim. As to a Sub being sunk? I am not sure what story you are referring to, but there were both German and Japanese subs prowling the mainland and Hawaii. If you are referring to the sub I am thinking of, it was sunk. It would not have alerted people to an impending attack, simply because it would not have been unusual. That is not to say that mistakes weren't made by personnel. They were, but that is in the benefit of hindsight. Anytime you have an incident this memorable, you can point fingers and say "if only". It does not mean that FDR knew, and the evidence is that he didn't. I see you also say that we didn't want the war to end early which makes no sense. It was Pearl Harbor that led to the declarations of war.

We wanted the war and we wanted it to last more than one engagement. I can see this a difficult concept for people to get their heads around. Has it never occurred to you folks, in your travels through the blogosphere that you might one day encounter someone who is privy to information you will never have classification to know whether it is true or not? We have lived in that world officially since 1947. The sub was encountered by the U.S.S. WARD. It had a radio. The call was made to HQ. None of that is classified. The encryption story is bogus. There would have been no significant delay in knowing that something ODD was going on. No German subs prowled Hawaii, talk about conflation! There would have been NO DOWN SIDE TO SOUNDING A FALSE ALARM. Especially when it turned out to not be a false alarm, and you could say the sub sinking and the radar report were suspicious indicators that something bad was afoot. No jap sub would have been attacking Pearl by itself. I emplore you to start understanding that the partial truth is always protected in order to hide the real truth. Yes we lost good ships and good men. they are expendable and replaceable, yet we still won the war, as we were certain we always would, we didn't have to Nuke civilians to win, that was just Truman's bonus.

He did "move heaven and Earth" to save lives. He sacrificed the few to save the many. FDR had to accept that the only way to get the populace behind the Pacific war was to let the Japs "win" the first engagement. That was a counterintuitive and difficult choice.

Paul: I am sorry to say that you simply do not understand the attitude surrounding WW 2. The Americans had no desire for another war. There was a strong isolationist streak at that time which came from WW 1. By strong, I mean that people like Charles Lindbergh, who should have known better, thought that Hitler was a pretty nice guy and that he could not be defeated. Do you remember FDR's Lend/Lease program? That was his way of getting aid to Britain that she desperately needed, since she was pretty much standing against Germany alone. FDR's rational for that program was "if I had an umbrella, and the other fellow needed it, I would lend it." FDR ran on not allowing our boys to have to fight another war on foreign land, but he recognized the threat to America early on, and knew he would have to educate the public, and by the pure force of his personality guide citizens to the idea that we must head back to Europe, and by doing that we would save Democracy. No one wanted that war to last, you are simply wrong about that. As to the sub sinking, that story you told is the same as the one I told. A sub was sunk. It was a miniature sub. It was not unusual to have subs in that area. There were also subs on the NE coast from Germany from time to time. This was a very dangerous time. I think that some historians see that as the first shots fired at Japan. If you are trying to intimate that you have some ability to get into Nat'l Security files, don't. It just makes you less believable. But I do think it very sad that you consider those men that died that day to be expendable. I'm sure upon reflection, you will see that as a very insensitive thing to say.

Your post of 6:56 is completely wrong and does not follow the known time line of Pearl Harbor. FDR had no need to let Japan do anything, once they attacked Pearl Harbor, it was an automatic declaration of war. Japan attacked Pearl Harbor for its own reasons, and was pretty delighted with itself to do so. It kept the secret from the Japanese consulate in Washington DC. All of this is pretty easy to track with documents that are available on the web. I realize that the conspiracy theory is much more fun, but if you wish to be taken seriously as a scholar of history you must deal with the facts as they exist, not the way you wish that they we were.

This is a little like shooting fish in a barrel and pulling teeth at the same time. I know what the official history is. What makes you think that you have been told everything about anything that has happened since 1913? Let us go back to the sub, minisub,yellowsub,sunken sub ,not sunken sub, nothing unusual sub, not a german sub but still a sub issue you keep making difficult. Please tell me, how many enemy submarines had been sighted or sunk around all of Hawaii prior to the day of the Pearl Harbor attack, Dec. 7, 1941. Then tell me how many within twenty miles of Pearl.

Paul, you are locked on to the wrong thing. A lot of what you complain about as contributing to the conspiracy theory that you hold is pure happenstance. For example, you are talking about the radar reading of the planes coming in from Japanese aircraft carriers. They did see that, but thought it was American planes. You are talking about some pretty rudimentary radar at that point. The sub thing does not lend credence to your theory either. The biggest problem with the Ward, as I recall, and I would have to look it up, is that they were simply not believed immediately, and head quarters wanted absolute confirmation. You are talking about people with human failings on a base that was not on high alert. This does not lead to your conclusion that FDR knew about this. I would like the name of the course that you claim that you took at Princeton. It would be interesting to check that out.

NewdayDAWNING-

Paul is what LEFT-WINGNUT madness looks like...kinda resembles Rosie O'Donnell, doesn't it?

Enjoy, and deal with it...

Personally...?

If I were you...I wouldn't waste my time.

Mixed Up!

Nothing like a hunk of chocolate to get the taste of clam juice our of your mouth now is there?

Give me a *hug* Anna Molly's not looking...

You are such an academic. Is that where they taught you to only think within the box? I never said or wrote that I had taken the course. You stated numerous times that submarine sightings were commonplace around Hawaii. I assume you meant potential enemy subs. I asked you for the numbers which would comport with "nothing unusual". If subs were commonplace why would the WARD's report not be believed? The "mistakes were made" defense is wearing awfully thin. The course existed at Princeton, my roomate took it.

Mixed Bag: I don't know if he is left or right actually. I think he is just very interested in conspiratorial thinking. But, he is causing me to think about things I haven't thought about in years. Kind of fun in that way. I don't generally post without checking my facts, but I did want to see what I could remember of those incidents, so I could be right or wrong on some of it, but I think I am pretty accurate on the basic facts. You have any recall of these incidents?

I think it is pretty safe to say, Paul that some spying was going on. In your post at 3:05, you seem to indicate that you had taken the class. I took you at your word. What is the name of that class anyway, and what semesters is it taught.

How many times are you going to fail to substantiate your claim that submarines were commonplace and THEREFORE would NOT be believed. As if that makes any logical sense. Just because someone gives you a response doesn't mean they have answered the question. I discussed the course with Chuck Whitehill class of '88, he took the course in the fall of '86. Now how about answering one of my questions. The one about numerous subs. Simple factual numbers will do.

When I wrote that WE wanted a long war I wasn't speaking for the majority of the American people. The enlightened knew that Nuclear weapons would likely be in the hands of all the industrialized nations by 1955. We knew, we the enlightened, that we would have to divide up the globe long before that could happen badly for us.

Feisty, darlin'...

I LOVE chocolate in just about every conceivable context...every single one.

And I'm sensing that you're not talking about food here...nor am I, necessarily.

That said...

Honestly...I have NO idea what you're talking about.

Paul, discussing a class taught in 86, means you have no actual knowledge of what the class contained, and since you cannot come up with a title for it, it makes your claim specious. As I said, my memory of these events is that there were reported subs in that area. If you want to take that as "OH MY GOD THAT PROVES MY THEORY" there is nothing I can do about that. But, seriously, Paul, my basic facts about FDR, the tenor of the times, and what went wrong at Pearl Harbor are correct. Your problem is that you take those facts and turn them into something they are not. Not everything is a conspiracy. Some of it is just human failing. And that sums up Pearl Harbor very well.

Wait..."we knew, we the enlightened, so what your claim actually is that you knew more than those who had the power to have the Security clearances? Then, Mixed Bag, you are right, I am definitely wasting my time.

Let me get this straight. If I discuss a class with someone who is taking the class while we live in the same suite and I have access to his notes and text book about historical events of the twentieth century, I can't know what the course is about or "contains"? What if I audit the course? Do I have to take the tests?

You asked, "Where do these conspiracy theories come from?" I gave you one example in passing, Princeton, and you have been unable ever since to courteously substantiate any of your "facts". Look up Chuck Whitehill and ask him about the silly history class. The issue is you may have been educated but your critical thinking skills are at best atrophied. The enlightened are happy to speak with the enlightened about what the enlightened knew and when they knew it. Einstein's letter to Roosevelt made clear what was to come. He didn't write that letter in a vacuum.

You have not substantiated facts Paul. No prof would say that you had. What you have done is told a story about someone who told you something about a class, but you can't remember the name of the class or the prof who taught it. But, as much fun as this has been, I can't spin around in this morass any longer. Have a good weekend.

Oh Mixed Up... I am so loving it that you for once are at a loss of words... ;0)

The invitation for a *hug* is still open...

HI, Feisty! *waves*! Have a good weekend. Going to try to ride before it rains. Humid here and warm here.

And really...."not everything is a conspiracy", do you think that I think that EVERYTHING is a conspiracy? Do you think that I think that your obsession with a course at Princeton in '86 is more about finding out who I am rather than substantiating the "speciousness" of the course's existence?

I will give you props for swallowing the conventional wisdom story and then being able to regurgitate it, but you're not going to spit it in my face.

I do believe that almost everything that happens on the geo-political stage is indeed a conspiracy or a portion of one. Has been for quite some time. Your ignorance of your ignorance is demonstrable. The Radar operator told HQ that he saw something big coming in from the North. HQ told him to shut the RADAR down, they didn't tell him to keep watching it until he was sure about how big a wave of planes were coming in, they ordered him to shut it down. This is not an honest mistake. They were mad at him for having kept the system up and running longer than the specified hours.

Because the Japs were scheduled to arrive after the RADAR had been shut down. The flight of bombers from California were scheduled to arrive at the same time so they could be used as the cover story.

Have a Nice Weekend, enjoyed most of the exchange with you.

Oh and your post at 7:29 about the inaccuracy of my post at 6:56 is a misunderstanding on your part. FDR let the Japs "win" the first engagement at Pearl, because our winning that battle would have ended the war in the Pacific too soon to benefit our M.I.C and our geopolitical goals. He sacrificed the few at Pearl to save the many as yet in uniform.

CA, transparency was one of Obama's most prominent campaign themes. I don't call people who support Obama blind worshippers, but I do think that when Obama supporters defend actions that are so clearly contrary to his entire campaign persona, THAT is blind adoration. You should be able to call out Obama on things like this, which are quite shady. If he wants his supporters to appreciate the necessity of dealing with lobbyists, explain that and make a log of everyone who's got a bug in his ear. That would be far more transparent than meeting in coffee shops for sole purpose of avoiding having to log who it is that the White House is talking to.

I don't expect Obama to stick to promises he makes that are clearly dependent upon factors that may be outside of his control; however, when he can't live up to a major tenet of his entire campaign, i.e., transparency, change, that should be a problem for everyone, including his supporters.

Well said CA, I am getting short on patiences with these naysayers and tired of argueing with them.

It goes to the old say"no one is as blind as those who don't want to see". I also think some come on here just to be obstreperous as none seem to offer any solutions, which leads me to think what is their real reason.

I think the President is now in the mood to be less bipartisan than he has in the past, and that is fine with me, I'll help by putting a little extra lead in his pencil every opportunity I get.

I enjoy your posts and read everyone of them. I like the way you think and write.

Have a great weekend.

Jill:

The same applies to those who criticize and ridicule Obama everytime he sneezes. I don't expect people to agree with everything Obama does or does not do, but I expect the same to admit he has had some pretty tough issues handed to him to deal with. I also expect that the same recognize and admit when Obama is faced with problems that were initiated or that are being driven by factors outside of his control rather than joining a blog conversation each morning looking for things they can criticize Obama about each day.

I voted for Obama but one of the determining factors was not his campaign promises of transparency. I knew that any candidate promising greater transparency in Washington could not hold that promise. So while I may disagree and even criticize Obama on some issues I am not going to crtiicize him for not keeping a promise I had already determined he could not keep. It was not a standard on which I cast my vote for him. And it had nothing to do with his personal level of honesty and integrity because as I stated, come 2012, you will see two candidates (maybe three) all of which will make promises, campaign speak you might say because all will be attempting to tell people what they think the people want to hear. Is this honest of any of them? Perhaps, perhaps not. Will one be elected? Yes. Will the one elected be able to keep all the promises he or she made? No.

Obama is wrong in his decision to remain in Afghanistan. Obama was wrong in not vetoing a HCR Bill that did not have a public option. Obama was wrong in initally believing in the honesty of BP's information regarding the oil spill. Obama was wrong in not maintaining regularly scheduled and on-going town hall meetings across this country with people after he won the election. The Obama administration failed to keep a more detailed eye on how the economic stimulus money was being spent. Obama was wrong in attempting to create jobs through various tax credits, etc., rather than using the FDR style public work programs. Obama was wrong in not directing more of the economic stimulus money towards the rebuilding of the infrastructure. Obama has been wrong in not responding quicker and with more zeal to those consant lies coming from the right and that are being used in an attempt to destroy his administration. Obama was wrong in his family choice of dogs (should have adopted a hound from the pound). These are a few of the things I disagree with Obama on and that I will criticize him for. But I will also give him his due when deserved, think he does possess leadership abilities and still think he was the best choice in 2008 versus the alternatives.

Now please, do not ever say I am unwilling to criticize Obama or am willing to follow him blindly. Evey Presdient has strengths and deficiencies. Every President makes good decisions and some bad decisions. The difference between myself and many from the right on this blog is that I am willing to point out my criticisims of Obama, recognize some strengths he has and will only judge him based on those standards I persoanlly had determined to use when selecting him over the other candidate. And his promise of transparency was not listed on my judgment / selection list as a one of the prominent expectations.

CA, I believe I was pointing to Gingerbread Mamma's comment about how much she loved that Obama was doing this....I never said anything about you. Now, yesterday, I did mention that you like to tout your criticism of Obama, but every other post of yours is about how much more intelligent he is than, well, everyone in the world. I'm not saying the guy isn't smart, because I think it is obvious that he is very, very intelligent. But to let something like this not only slide, but be celebrated? Come on!

You say that you determined that Obama would not be able to keep his promises of transparency. Really, CA? Even if that's true, are you ok with the President apparently approving of a practice where lobbyists are NOT required to be disclosed to the public? I mean, even if you knew that he wouldn't be able to escape the influence of lobbyists (I knew he was blowing smoke about that), you can't think it's ok to skirt his promise of transparency when, as here, it IS entirely within his control. He CAN require that these meetings be disclosed to the public. Yet, he doesn't. How is that not within his control, CA?

I don't think it matters Jill. Lobbyists, and those who rely on the same for favors, money, etc., as many politicians, would find a way around any policy implemented by a Presdient that required disclosure of meetings with lobbyists. This is not a question of being able to create a policy but rather one of being able to regulate and enforce the provisions of the policy. Even though I do think that Obama's intentions during the campaign were to try and implement, regulate and enforce these steps towards greater transparency, I will also say that I think his navite as a young and inexperienced Washington insider / player when elected President did not allow for reality to drive his judgment and therefore his promises during the campaign on this issue. I think that Obama has since learned, as did other Presdients in the past after they took office, that the lobbying network has greater power than the President.

I'm not letting anything slide nor am I celebrating this problem. But I am recognizing as well as challenging that no matter who becomes President, and no matter how much they campaign on transparency with regard to pursuing policy, regulation and the enforcement of the diclosure of lobbyists meetings, it is not going to happen no matter how sincere that candidate may be at the time they made such promises. I scoffed then, when the promise was made, then set it aside as a less important qualifier as to how I would vote. There is no need for me to scoff and criticize now because it would not matter who was in office, the result would be the same.

The bigger problem I have is not that his administration is meeting with lobbyists, it is that he's skirting his promise of transparency, which is completely within his control, by meeting with them in places where those lobbyists do not have to enter their names on the WH visitor's log. Openness would require that the public know who's got a bug in his ear. Sheesh.

Well, you get me some pictures of Obama personally meeting with lobbyists on numerous occasions sitting at a back / corner table with shades on or head coverings at a Star Bucks or any other coffee shop and then we can discuss further.

Obama is responsible for everything that goes on in HIS administration. If his aides are meeting with lobbyists, he is, in effect, likewise meeting with lobbyists.

Thank you Nash. you did a great job this week. Have a great weekend with and enjoy your family.

Blessings.

Have a good one Nash - you've earned it by entertaining the dirtballs and dangerwhatever... :0))

Have a good weekend, Nash, you provided some highlights this week!

What a great idea. Everybody get together, drive somewhere, and hold hands to protest oil. I assume every participant will be walking down to the beach, otherwise they'll just be rewarding the oil companies by using their product.

You all really want to protest oil? Then man up and just stop using it. Stick it to big bad oil companies by boycotting their product. What's that, you can't becasue there is no viable alternative? That's a shame, because until there is it seems these protests/demonstrations are just supporting oil through its continued use.

HAHAHAHA, ok that is very funny.

What's next, agree to shout at the wind at the same time???

Does your head happen to be stuck in the sand while you do this?

Certainly not rare, unusual, or what was that word? Oh yeah, transformative (i.e. different than before), as in most transparent presidency evah.

FU - you are one sick puppy!

Feisty- do you ever have a clue, any clue at all, what this bean-bag is going on about?

For what it's wroth, if there is sex going on, and Palin is involved, and a dog (or it's catcher) is involved, I'm making my move for the dog. Or the catcher. Or CU's invitingly, wide-open mind.

Nope Drive-By!

Neither him or the rest of the dog pound that's lurking around here - speaking of sex...the little doggies must be damn prolific as they're multiplying rapidly! lol

Looks like to could use a trip to the vet to get tutored... oops I mean neutered! btw one of my all time favorite Larson jokes ;0)

Hey, Clara KCMO- Feisty brought us a Far Side minute!

Thanks, FRR- these always make my day! That one with the dog going to get 'tutored' reminds me of all the lower-middle class to lower class conservatives that get all 'jiggy' when a republican is elected. They don't realize the republican is going to screw them as much as he can to keep them poor, and divert the $$$ to his already rich friends!

CU--You mean the woman who made unsubstantiated, highly detailed claims about Al Gore 3 different times, but the police didn't see them as suffciently valid to follow up on? The woman who asked if she could edit her police statement? The one who warned the police that if they didn't do something she'd go to "the press" and she chose the NATIONAL ENQUIRER?

Why would we do more than observe and see if any fire is behind this oddly colored smoke?