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.

(Politico) Ironic Vice President Joe Biden holds transparency meeting behind closed doors. Hey Joe, you're doing it wrong   (politico.com) divider line 57
More: Ironic, Joe Biden, Eisenhower Executive Office Building, Roosevelt Room, Obummer, twelve-step program, Transparency Board, vice presidents, joe  
•       •       •

567 clicks; posted to Politics » on 17 Nov 2011 at 2:46 PM   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»   |    Get this fabulous T-Shirt and impress the methane out of your friends! shirt it!



57 Comments   (+0 »)
   

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
Dusk-You-n-Me [TotalFark]
2011-11-17 12:06:08 PM
25.media.tumblr.com

hotdogless.
 
James! [TotalFark]
2011-11-17 12:07:36 PM
You might need to have a private meeting to discuss which things can be shared with the public and which can't.
 
Cake Hunter [TotalFark]
2011-11-17 12:18:12 PM
You expect them to hold a public meeting about personal cloaking technology?



Hm?

Oh.
 
veedeevadeevoodee
2011-11-17 12:57:19 PM
Hey Joe, you're doing it wrong

img1.fark.net demands a recount
 
AlwaysRightBoy [TotalFark]
2011-11-17 01:08:59 PM
veedeevadeevoodee: Hey Joe, you're doing it wrong

[img1.fark.net image 54x11] demands a recount

Being that the ironic is abused a lot (myself included), this time it actually works.
 
uber humper
2011-11-17 01:27:52 PM
James!: You might need to have a private meeting to discuss which things can be shared with the public and which can't.

What to be transparent about and what not to be? This is not a change.

/But there is always hope!
 
Calmamity [TotalFark]
2011-11-17 01:44:27 PM
By "transparency meeting" Biden meant they were letting him do Shrinky-Dinks.
 
James! [TotalFark]
2011-11-17 01:45:53 PM
uber humper: James!: You might need to have a private meeting to discuss which things can be shared with the public and which can't.

What to be transparent about and what not to be? This is not a change.

/But there is always hope!

The White House often deals with classified or sensitive information.

3.bp.blogspot.com
 
mrshowrules [TotalFark]
2011-11-17 02:01:33 PM
James!: You might need to have a private meeting to discuss which things can be shared with the public and which can't.

Came here to post this. By definition, a meeting to maximize the release of information, would have to be closed.

An open meeting to discuss releasing additional information would be limited to information already released and therefore would be completely farking retarded.

The only meeting Cheney ever had on releasing information resulted in the outing an agent and was effectively treason.
 
Peter von Nostrand [TotalFark]
2011-11-17 02:04:11 PM
Dusk-You-n-Me: [25.media.tumblr.com image 500x334]

hotdogless.

I lol'd. Would lol again
 
GAT_00 [TotalFark]
2011-11-17 02:18:04 PM
When discussing future transparency, it often works that you follow old rules for transparency.
 
JLEM
2011-11-17 02:49:42 PM
It's f*cking Moron Day on Fark. Hell, at least try.
 
bulldg4life
2011-11-17 02:49:56 PM
Unless the Obama Administration is holding all meeting at noon at the national mall, he's a failure. Haha, how's that hope and change working out??!?!?!?

*barf*
 
Car_Ramrod
2011-11-17 02:52:36 PM
Obama poops with the door closed. Where's the transparency? Hope and change indeed.

/Biden poops with the door open
 
Car_Ramrod
2011-11-17 02:53:32 PM
As has been the case with every meeting of the board, the minutes of the meeting will be posted online."

Those farkheads!
 
Dr Dreidel
2011-11-17 02:56:02 PM
Car_Ramrod: Obama poops with the door closed. Where's the transparency? Hope and change indeed.

/Biden poops with the door open

And he flushes while I'm still in the shower.

// also, his Trans-Am hasn't been washed in weeks
// I heard Obama two-flushes the day after White House Taco Night - DISBAND THE EPA!
 
Corvus
2011-11-17 03:02:53 PM
Remember the last Republican budgets that they demanded they were behind close doors? And when Obama went to the press to talk about it he was attacked by the Republicans?

Funny how no one cared about those!!
 
Corvus
2011-11-17 03:06:26 PM
The "deficit reduction" group that Republicans created is all behind closed doors.

The last budget the Republicans created was all negotiated behind closed doors.

The negotiations for raising the debt ceiling Republicans demanded it was done behind closed doors.

But I forget those don't count.
 
Quiefenburger [TotalFark]
2011-11-17 03:10:07 PM
Something tells me Biden is going to have a change of heart about running sidecar in next year's election.
 
Dusk-You-n-Me [TotalFark]
2011-11-17 03:12:11 PM
Quiefenburger: Something tells me Biden is going to have a change of heart about running sidecar in next year's election.

What tells you that?
 
Muta
2011-11-17 03:12:58 PM
Don't we have this headline (or one similar to it) every quarter when they have the meeting?
 
uber humper
2011-11-17 03:14:32 PM
James!: uber humper: James!: You might need to have a private meeting to discuss which things can be shared with the public and which can't.

What to be transparent about and what not to be? This is not a change.

/But there is always hope!

The White House often deals with classified or sensitive information.

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 200x150]

Of course, I understand that. I just think it's silly to talk about transparency. It doesn't mean anything.

A platitude, yea that's the word I was looking for.
 
Lost Thought 00
2011-11-17 03:14:50 PM
In fairness, there wouldn't be a need to have a meeting if they held the meeting in public.
 
Altair
2011-11-17 03:15:54 PM
Search Fark and you'll see DOZENS of links alonh the lines of "transparency meeting closed to public/press."

Yawn. Lrn2BOriginal Subtard.
 
JLEM
2011-11-17 03:18:54 PM
Lost Thought 00: In fairness, there wouldn't be a need to have a meeting if they held the meeting in public.

And naked.


Keep going...
 
James! [TotalFark]
2011-11-17 03:21:21 PM
uber humper: James!: uber humper: James!: You might need to have a private meeting to discuss which things can be shared with the public and which can't.

What to be transparent about and what not to be? This is not a change.

/But there is always hope!

The White House often deals with classified or sensitive information.

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 200x150]

Of course, I understand that. I just think it's silly to talk about transparency. It doesn't mean anything.

A platitude, yea that's the word I was looking for.

Giving people more information about what the government is up to is good, but you can't just throw the doors open and let everything out. It takes careful consideration of what can or should be shared.
 
uber humper
2011-11-17 03:29:03 PM
James!: uber humper: James!: uber humper: James!: You might need to have a private meeting to discuss which things can be shared with the public and which can't.

What to be transparent about and what not to be? This is not a change.

/But there is always hope!

The White House often deals with classified or sensitive information.

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 200x150]

Of course, I understand that. I just think it's silly to talk about transparency. It doesn't mean anything.

A platitude, yea that's the word I was looking for.

Giving people more information about what the government is up to is good, but you can't just throw the doors open and let everything out. It takes careful consideration of what can or should be shared.

But you will never know it's true. I'm all for opening up government and I understand that certain things must be kept secret, for good reason.

But to say 'we are/will be more transparent ' doesn't mean anything if there is no way to determine f they are or aren't . You have to take their word for it. Akin to someone telling you to "trust me" when there is no way to find out if they are telling the truth or not.
 
BuckTurgidson
2011-11-17 03:29:48 PM
 
James! [TotalFark]
2011-11-17 03:33:46 PM
uber humper: James!: uber humper: James!: uber humper: James!: You might need to have a private meeting to discuss which things can be shared with the public and which can't.

What to be transparent about and what not to be? This is not a change.

/But there is always hope!

The White House often deals with classified or sensitive information.

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 200x150]

Of course, I understand that. I just think it's silly to talk about transparency. It doesn't mean anything.

A platitude, yea that's the word I was looking for.

Giving people more information about what the government is up to is good, but you can't just throw the doors open and let everything out. It takes careful consideration of what can or should be shared.

But you will never know it's true. I'm all for opening up government and I understand that certain things must be kept secret, for good reason.

But to say 'we are/will be more transparent ' doesn't mean anything if there is no way to determine f they are or aren't . You have to take their word for it. Akin to someone telling you to "trust me" when there is no way to find out if they are telling the truth or not.

It's not their jobs to make you believe things.
 
farkin_Gary
2011-11-17 03:35:51 PM
They can have all meetings and decide as many things in private as they want to!

What matters to me is: How much will it cost me and how will it be enforced.
 
The Homer Tax
2011-11-17 03:39:30 PM
James!:
Giving people more information about what the government is up to is good, but you can't just throw the doors open and let everything out. It takes careful consideration of what can or should be shared.

Not only that, if you had cameras in every single meeting, nothing would ever get done because no one would ever be able to be honest or candid about anything for fear of the internet/ 24 hour news channels grabbing anything and running with it. It would be a fiasco.

Every congressional or legislative meeting would be like a televised political debate, and we all know how informative and productive those things are.
 
uber humper
2011-11-17 03:41:37 PM
James!: uber humper: James!: uber humper: James!: uber humper: James!: You might need to have a private meeting to discuss which things can be shared with the public and which can't.

What to be transparent about and what not to be? This is not a change.

/But there is always hope!

The White House often deals with classified or sensitive information.

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 200x150]

Of course, I understand that. I just think it's silly to talk about transparency. It doesn't mean anything.

A platitude, yea that's the word I was looking for.

Giving people more information about what the government is up to is good, but you can't just throw the doors open and let everything out. It takes careful consideration of what can or should be shared.

But you will never know it's true. I'm all for opening up government and I understand that certain things must be kept secret, for good reason.

But to say 'we are/will be more transparent ' doesn't mean anything if there is no way to determine f they are or aren't . You have to take their word for it. Akin to someone telling you to "trust me" when there is no way to find out if they are telling the truth or not.

It's not their jobs to make you believe things.

"Yeah! The government is more transparent!"

'How do you know?'


"They told me so."
 
uber humper
2011-11-17 03:43:43 PM
The Homer Tax: James!:
Giving people more information about what the government is up to is good, but you can't just throw the doors open and let everything out. It takes careful consideration of what can or should be shared.

Not only that, if you had cameras in every single meeting, nothing would ever get done because no one would ever be able to be honest or candid about anything for fear of the internet/ 24 hour news channels grabbing anything and running with it. It would be a fiasco.

Every congressional or legislative meeting would be like a televised political debate, and we all know how informative and productive those things are.

I'm not arguing the need for privacy. I'm saying "transparent" doesn't mean anything. It's a bullshiate line.
 
James! [TotalFark]
2011-11-17 03:50:14 PM
A healthy amount of distrust is fine, but let's not start building conspiracies of fake information.
 
Car_Ramrod
2011-11-17 03:50:17 PM
uber humper: The Homer Tax: James!:
Giving people more information about what the government is up to is good, but you can't just throw the doors open and let everything out. It takes careful consideration of what can or should be shared.

Not only that, if you had cameras in every single meeting, nothing would ever get done because no one would ever be able to be honest or candid about anything for fear of the internet/ 24 hour news channels grabbing anything and running with it. It would be a fiasco.

Every congressional or legislative meeting would be like a televised political debate, and we all know how informative and productive those things are.

I'm not arguing the need for privacy. I'm saying "transparent" doesn't mean anything. It's a bullshiate line.

You could compare this presidency to past ones and determine if it is more or less or equally open.
 
Knara
2011-11-17 04:04:15 PM
uber humper: I'm not arguing the need for privacy. I'm saying "transparent" doesn't mean anything. It's a bullshiate line.

Not really. There's a difference between making things deliberately hard to figure out, even if it's non-classified, and blowing the doors open.

Increasing transparency of government is not the same as making government totally transparent.

Making large amounts of data easier to get, posting things of actual use on easily accessible websites, etc. All that increases transparency of government.

I'm sorry that the Obama administration isn't scratching your particular itch, whatever that might be.
 
uber humper
2011-11-17 04:09:46 PM
James!: A healthy amount of distrust is fine, but let's not start building conspiracies of fake information.

No conspiracy. It's that honest people do not talk that way. Honest people do not make statements that cannot be confirmed, especially when the subject is their own honesty.

As I said a few minutes ago, Transparency is a meaningless platitude. As you will never know if they are being transparent or not. You have to be a true-believer or in love to believe someone when they tell you they are being honest.
 
uber humper
2011-11-17 04:12:26 PM
Knara: Making large amounts of data easier to get, posting things of actual use on easily accessible websites, etc. All that increases transparency of government.

Well, we'll see what they make available. Do you have any idea what is on the table? What would you like the government to be more open about?
 
LasersHurt
2011-11-17 04:16:30 PM
uber humper: Transparency is a meaningless platitude.

I think you're confusing meaningless platitudes and abstract concepts.
 
Mr_Fabulous
2011-11-17 04:23:08 PM
LasersHurt: uber humper: Transparency is a meaningless platitude.

I think you're confusing meaningless platitudes and abstract concepts.

And relative terms.
 
uber humper
2011-11-17 04:28:08 PM
LasersHurt: uber humper: Transparency is a meaningless platitude.

I think you're confusing meaningless platitudes and abstract concepts.

Possibly. I'm using it as in the government is saying we are going to be more 'transparent' when in itself transparent doesn't mean anything since we have no idea what is being held back. Transparent is just being said to give people a warm feeling.

The Reichstag put up a glass ceiling to make the symbolic gesture that they are transparent. Would a glass ceiling actually make them to be more transparent? No, there is no guarantee, it's just a symbol. So my use of platitude is that symbols in themselves are worthless.
 
LasersHurt
2011-11-17 04:31:50 PM
uber humper: LasersHurt: uber humper: Transparency is a meaningless platitude.

I think you're confusing meaningless platitudes and abstract concepts.

Possibly. I'm using it as in the government is saying we are going to be more 'transparent' when in itself transparent doesn't mean anything since we have no idea what is being held back. Transparent is just being said to give people a warm feeling.

The Reichstag put up a glass ceiling to make the symbolic gesture that they are transparent. Would a glass ceiling actually make them to be more transparent? No, there is no guarantee, it's just a symbol. So my use of platitude is that symbols in themselves are worthless.

Even so, your whole point hinges on nothing of any value changing. Do you know what has changed?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/open
 
uber humper
2011-11-17 04:39:37 PM
LasersHurt: Even so, your whole point hinges on nothing of any value changing. Do you know what has changed?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/open

I glad to see more info released, but I'll never know if pertinent information is being held back.

We'll have to leave it at a disagreement. I just think transparent is a weasel word.
 
WellBelowAverage
2011-11-17 04:46:02 PM
What they meant was the hypocrisy was transparent.
 
JLEM
2011-11-17 04:47:11 PM
uber humper: I glad to see more info released, but I'll never know if pertinent information is being held back.

That seems like an existential certainty.
 
Pro Zack
2011-11-17 05:11:12 PM
www.cbsnews.com

If you want to know the real message from the public meeting, remember to set your decoder pins to G-6!
 
chimp_ninja [TotalFark]
2011-11-17 05:12:11 PM
uber humper: I glad to see more info released, but I'll never know if pertinent information is being held back.

In other words, there is nothing anyone in the government can ever do to make you happy on this topic, because someone, somewhere might have not told you something.

In the meantime, there is a fair bit of information that most people agree shouldn't be released to the public. For example, the government needs your tax returns to assess that you've paid what you should, but you probably don't want them making everyone's tax returns available on the Internet. And even that is way less harmful than disclosing certain kinds of military, intelligence, and diplomatic information.

If you need to have a meeting about what categories of information can or cannot be released, it makes sense for it to be closed-door.
 
uber humper
2011-11-17 05:20:47 PM
chimp_ninja: In other words, there is nothing anyone in the government can ever do to make you happy on this topic, because someone, somewhere might have not told you something.

I don't trust blindly. People's motives should always be questioned.

I think if someone were dishonest, they would say I'm going to be more honest and throw out a bunch of information in hopes of placating people.

And I'm not one to say that Obama is the devil (or some similar BS). But when he (or anyone) tells me they are going to open up and tell me what I need to know, I have to question their real motive. That's how a smoke and mirrors trick works.
 
uber humper
2011-11-17 05:23:41 PM
chimp_ninja: n the meantime, there is a fair bit of information that most people agree shouldn't be released to the public. For example, the government needs your tax returns to assess that you've paid what you should, but you probably don't want them making everyone's tax returns available on the Internet. And even that is way less harmful than disclosing certain kinds of military, intelligence, and diplomatic information.

I've answered that question a couple of times in this thread. I've made my point. And I'm not going to repeat myself again. But I'll be happy to debate with you in another thread. I gotta run.
 
James! [TotalFark]
2011-11-17 05:27:10 PM
uber humper: I gotta run.

Lies.
 
Displayed 50 of 57 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

Redisplay/refresh comments

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »