jump to last post 1-4 of 4 discussions (9 posts)

Obama wants to hide some of Kagans writings now

  1. tony0724 profile image59
    tony0724posted 7 years ago

    I thought that Obama was supposed to be the hope and change guy who believed in transparency.Now it seems his counsel wants to withold writings by Kagan to the judiciary committee ? Remind you of anyone ? Hope and change huh ? Nothing's changed !

    http://kaganwatch.com/2010/06/03/white- … documents/

    1. psycheskinner profile image81
      psycheskinnerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      How much change could be realistically expected.  Frankly, passing the health bill and starting to dismantle DADT was more than I expected he would be able to do.

    2. FitnezzJim profile image83
      FitnezzJimposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Let them see what I want them to see, so they can only see from my own ploarized perspective.  Then and only then will they logically follow my logic.

      Could it be that the term "transparent government" meant only that we will see how things are done in Washington, knowing full well that we'll do nothing about it?

  2. profile image0
    Brenda Durhamposted 7 years ago

    He is the typical manipulative Chicago-hood type.
    Many skeletons in his closet as well as Kagan's I imagine.

    1. Paraglider profile image95
      Paragliderposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      There we have it - you 'imagine'
      When you don't know of any particular skeletons, you imagine them. Guilty till proven innocent. How charitable.

  3. leeberttea profile image52
    leebertteaposted 7 years ago

    Who would have thought that a liberal like Kagan would be so against free speech? I think that's reason enough for her appointment to be denied.

  4. Uninvited Writer profile image83
    Uninvited Writerposted 7 years ago

    I guess trying to get her eliminated by saying she was a lesbian failed for you guys.

    1. leeberttea profile image52
      leebertteaposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I don't care about her sexual perferences! What do you think of this?

      Here she implies that government should have a role in insuring "equal speech" in public discourse. A very dangerous belief for a supreme court judge that may be asked to rule on first amendment free speech issues.

      And here she advocates the government role in restricting speech:

      This isn't just about yelling fire in a crowded theater, this is about the government determining speech to be hate speech and restricting it a la Canada!

      1. lovemychris profile image66
        lovemychrisposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Kind of like everybody threw a hissy-fit when Thomas said Israel should get the hell out of Palestine? like that??

        Or when Howard Stern comments on farts and poo-poo?? Like that?
        Or when all of talk radio calls our president an anti-American muslim terrorist magic Negro??...oh yeah, I forgot: THAT is allowed!!!