Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(MSNBC)   Remember last week when CEOs of Exxon, Conoco, Shell and BP testified before Congress that they didn't meet with Cheney's energy task force? They were lying. Good thing they weren't under oath   (msnbc.msn.com) divider line 426
    More: Followup  
•       •       •

21248 clicks; posted to Main » on 16 Nov 2005 at 9:23 AM (9 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



426 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2005-11-16 09:07:49 PM  
lexslamman: Is all that secrecy the natural state of political functioning? NO! It certainly isn't. The natural state of political function is a transparent one.

I guarantee you that the first time the Pack Leaders begged the crowd's leave and retired to the cave to deliberate, the first subject they spoke of was the ranting and raving group of morans standing outside of the cave.
 
2005-11-16 09:09:48 PM  
Thrag:

Thing is, when you have enough impact on the world, the world will also want to have an impact on you.

And you can't win against the world.
 
2005-11-16 09:15:37 PM  
whorehopper

And that alone is a wonderful argument for transparency and against secrecy....
 
2005-11-16 09:16:54 PM  
I think the notion of a completely open and transparent governmental process is quaint. Those of you who so stridently believe in it are essential to moderating those who would prefer to do everything in secret. The reality (including in this administration) is that some things are open and others are not. I won't bother trying to convince you of the need for secrecy (I prefer - confidentiality) in some governmental activities, or bother to compile even a partial list of those activities. You keep up the good fight and I will trust that you will win just often enough to keep the balance reasonable.

By the way - no matter how many times someone pops in to post that map of Iraq, it not only doesn't prove anything, it doesn't even suggest anything.
 
2005-11-16 09:38:33 PM  
HappyDaddy

Reading from the RNC handbook again? You seem to know the strategy well: Duck, Dodge, and Deny.
 
2005-11-16 09:55:51 PM  
lexslamman: And that alone is a wonderful argument for transparency and against secrecy....

C'mon, do you have any idea how insecure a no-huddle world would be?
 
2005-11-16 09:58:23 PM  
HappyDaddy, looking down at others and carrying a holier-than-thou attitude does not make your argument any more convincing.

But, hey, uh, good luck with that and junk.


/Considering the 'tude, really doubting you donated that $50
 
2005-11-16 10:08:00 PM  
I, for one, am shocked at this bracing jolt of unforeseen happenstance! Dearest me, how shall I ever recover?
 
2005-11-16 10:14:28 PM  
bad_rutabaga: really doubting you donated that $50

Of course I "look down on others." Very few of "others" have any idea what the hell they're talking about. I have no expectation of convincing anyone of anything on a silly website like FARK. I amuse myself here. Thanks for your concern.

Oh, BTW fark you.

Thank you for your recent $50.00 donation to Fisher House Foundation.
Your credit card has been processed and your name is being forwarded on to the organization so that they may provide you with an acknowledgement and receipt.

You provided us with the following special information which is also being forwarded to Fisher House Foundation.

I would like my donation to be used for the following program:
Sponsor A Family

Recurs - No

I would like my donation to be used for the following program:
Sponsor A Family



Once again, thank you for your generosity.

Sincerely,

Shannon Smith
Independent Charities of America
1-866-459-6420
i­n­f­o­[nospam-﹫-backwards]seiti­rah­c­tned­ne­p­e­dn­i*org




lexslamman: Duck, Dodge, and Deny.

If you've got something in particular you'd like to discuss, fine. Otherwise, piss off.
 
2005-11-16 10:17:23 PM  
lexslamman

Please do not interpret my last remark as an invitation. I have to be on an airplane at 6:00am and I'm done. So, just piss off. ;-)
 
2005-11-16 10:32:54 PM  
Lexslamman

Government is like sausage, great when it's good, kills people when it's bad, and no matter which way the batch turns out - you never want to see how it is made.

The real rub, as it were, is between anarchy and government. Government is huddled inside the cave trying to figure out a way to govern, while the governed mill around like an angry mob, demanding that their angry mob position be heard.

The farking mob doesn't need to hear everything, doesn't need to be involved exactly in everything... Here's a few reasons why:

[image from z.about.com too old to be available]
Morans

[image from melroseiowa.com too old to be available]
Moran Pipers. Omg, I just hotlinked to melroseiowa.com.

[image from solocuties.com too old to be available]
Crissy Moran
 
2005-11-16 10:42:11 PM  
"I think the notion of a completely open and transparent governmental process is quaint. think the notion of a completely open and transparent governmental process is quaint. Those of you who so stridently believe in it are essential to moderating those who would prefer to do everything in secret. The reality (including in this administration) is that some things are open and others are not. I won't bother trying to convince you of the need for secrecy (I prefer - confidentiality) in some governmental activities, or bother to compile even a partial list of those activities. You keep up the good fight and I will trust that you will win just often enough to keep the balance reasonable."
accepted. areas this applies to: national security (not defence), intelligence/counter intelligence gathering data, covert law enforcement,
areas this has no business in: fiscal policy, education policy, health policy, infrastructure policy, environmental policy, agriculture policy and energy policy.
partial lists, granted but there is a general theme in each that can be noted. secrecy can be justified and should be protected in areas that related directly to the physical safety of the government and the people and the security of their institutions. there is not rationale for why energy policy in a free and open society needs to be guarded from the public. was it secret because there were dirty dealings going on by a group of known corrupt cronies? maybe, no proof though. does it make it seem a whole lot more suspicious that all the parties involved lied in congress when asked? fark yes.
So happydaddy, why is it justifiable in this specific case to initially hold meetings pertaining to public policy that affects all americans in a non-security context behind closed doors and then to later lie about the meeting happening? im pretty darned curious about the utility of it and i'm even more curious why someone himself is so incurious but goes on to defend a government that so blatantly goes to lengths to keep the electorate painfully ignorant.
 
2005-11-16 10:42:51 PM  
whorehopper

Why not? More transparency reduces uncertainty. I would argue that less uncertainty would minimize conflict, or at least make it less intense. I think the majority of political scientists agree with me.

HappyDaddy

I'm pissing. Have a nice flight, you curmudgeonous cantankerous conservative.
 
2005-11-16 10:44:14 PM  
HappyDaddy: Immaculate_Misconception

The bet was whether there would/would not be any indictments. It was $25.00 to the military service charity of the loser's choice. I had already decided to make my donation to Fisher House, and have done so, except I made it for $50.00 instead.



Well, you've got a better memory than me I guess. I commend you for paying up so quickly, I figured you would.

Hell, you may be a Bush apologist, but I have no reason to not trust your word, after all, it's not like you work for the President or anything. :P
 
2005-11-16 10:59:44 PM  
another aspect id like to bring up completely separate from happydaddy and his pathetic naive faith in a political party that is tripping over its own corruption and being caught in enormous lies on a weekly basis.

this is more of a general political stance question.

does anyone else out there think it sucks a$$ that when forming their energy policy, the republicans consulted with no one but the CEO's of petrochemical companies? why were environmental groups not allowed to join? are energy and the environment not interrelated in almost every way? what about the academic community. surely someone with a PHD in chemistry/physics/biology should have more weight in how energy ought to be produced than a business man who is an expert in increasing his own wealth...
would people be comfortable if health care policy was being formed and only pharmaceutical execs were invited to share in the process?
how about consulting some foxes on how to best protect a chicken coup?
major corporations should be playing a much smaller role in the formation of government policy. if they have no goals aside from blindly increasing profit to obscene levels and are willing/eager to do so at the expense of people's health, safety and security while gladly destabilizing the geo-political climate, spreading poverty and declaring war on the environment, what the fark business do they have in helping the government decide what is best for the citizenry?
 
2005-11-16 11:02:24 PM  
Immaculate_Misconception
you may be a Bush apologist, but I have no reason to not trust your word

!?!?!
 
2005-11-16 11:05:55 PM  
lexslamman: I would argue that less uncertainty would minimize conflict, or at least make it less intense.


And that is why, logically I think, the US should impose now a will upon the whole of the Earth that Aggression Ends Here Or Aggression Will Start Here.

Musashi had built for him a katana with a custom inscribed tsuba (handguard), it read: on the side facing the enemy: The Instrument Which Takes Life. On the side facing Musashi; The Instrument Which Gives Life. We have the sword, right now. Nobody for five hundred years might have this powerful a sword again.

Declare that all borders are frozen and that any aggression ANYWHERE BY ANYONE will be met with a response.That the buck stops there, then I will agree with total transparency. Until then, this is a fishtank with many potentially scarier creatures than George W. Bush floating around in it.

Bush is thinking small time with his Democracy for the Mid East, what we need is Democracy for the World. And yes, at the point of the sword, because the sword has always been there and it needs to go. It is time to grow up, for the whole world.
 
2005-11-16 11:14:02 PM  
mrexcess: !?!?!


Like I said, he's an apologist, not a staffer.

Because he believes their bullshiat doesn't mean he's not trustworthy, just really fcuking gullible.

HappyDaddy and I have had a few lengthy conversations, I don't think he's a bad guy at all, just terribly misled.
 
2005-11-16 11:15:02 PM  
HappyDaddy: The Task Force meetings are covered by Executive Privilege. It is unfortunate that the concept of Executive Privilege only makes the news when one party or the other is trying to make political hay out of the goings on with the President of the other party. It is an essential element of effective governing. In its absence, no President could obtain the kind of important advice and information that is needed to do the job.


This is extraordinarily obtuse, even for HappyDaddy. Cheney refused to tell the public who advised him. The only conceivable reason for doing so is that he felt it would be a political liability. Please construct a plausible scenario under which the President or Vice President would be unable to get "important advice and information" about our national energy policy if he revealed from whom he was getting the advice. Frankly, I don't want our energy policy to be shaped by anyone who is ashamed to have his name associated with that policy.

Who meets with whom and what they say is not the point.

Strangely enough, I seem to remember HappyDaddy complaining about stories originating from liberal or Democrat sources, as if they were somehow less credible than reports from major news networks. What's up with that?

Am I the only one who finds it amusing that a White House that thought nothing of outing a covert CIA agent finds it necessary to cloak their dealings with the energy industry in utmost secrecy? That's a very strange double standard, particularly in wartime.
 
2005-11-16 11:19:34 PM  
knobmaker: Am I the only one who finds it amusing that a White House that thought nothing of outing a covert CIA agent finds it necessary to cloak their dealings with the energy industry in utmost secrecy?


Haven't you heard, Vanity Fair and Patrick Fiztgerald and some guy named Rove Notindicted outted her. I saw it on Fox.
 
2005-11-16 11:21:11 PM  
You know, I do so many things everyday I can't honestly say I'd remember if I met with the vice president of the United States in a secret meeting to determine the country's energy policies.

I certainly wouldn't remember if we'd talked about how cool it would be to have an excuse to invade Iraq.
 
2005-11-16 11:24:53 PM  
Garble: I certainly wouldn't remember if we'd talked about how cool it would be to have an excuse to invade Iraq.


As your Potted Plant I advise you to stop speaking. As your lawyer, I advise you to take two hits from the little brown bottle in my shaving kit. Don't take too much.
 
2005-11-16 11:25:03 PM  
I wonder if Dick scared em with WMD stories?
 
2005-11-17 08:17:18 AM  
"We did not, no," said ConocoPhillips chairman James Mulva.

Mulva?
 
2005-11-17 10:49:33 AM  
What are we waiting for? Taco Bell to take over the world?
But they already have. We worried about communism, hippys, nukes, drugs, terrorism, fags, while the baby was thrown out with the bath water. We learned as a child how mobs could perform uncomprehensible acts, thier individual moralities discarded for the base passion of the group.

We also learned how market economy was a subtle dance of supply and demand, and the celebration of this union was the equivalent of a moral imperative. No member of the economy would chose, would demand a product that wasn't comprehensibly sound. And by association, no supplier would choose to provide a product, even with ample demand, that would harm long term goals or long term production, or would consume collective assets.

We also know that corporations were somehow granted the status of political/economic personage by some slight of hand regarding the 14th admenment. These organizations, these constructions of ideas hold comparable status, hold tax id numbers like our social security numbers. The coporation are the same, with some modifiers, within our society as you are.

But we have a market economy. The players must have a fecund mind and a complex morality. Some or not most of the market has to be aware of social consequences. We must be aware that the immediate profit has the potential to lead to longterm collapse.

So the moral of this story is about the need for government, the need for regulation, and the destruction of any corporation that outlives its creator. Once Ford died, once Walton died, once Disney died, the residue of their ambition lived on but not thier morality. Corporations evolve into profit driven enterprises and they destroy capitalism, they destroy the market. They cannot satisfy the requirements of a moral market player.
 
2005-11-17 05:19:37 PM  
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows..."
 
Displayed 26 of 426 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report