Energy Policy - Page 2 - Mercedes-Benz Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #11 of 18 (permalink) Old 05-11-2005, 01:05 PM
~BANNED~
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Posts: 41,649
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Quoted: 1761 Post(s)
RE: Energy Policy

Quote:
Botnst - 5/10/2005 8:58 PM

Quote:
Zeitgeist - 5/10/2005 9:41 PM

I thought self-described "libertarians" were proponents of open government...hmmm, I guess cheerleading is a more compelling philosophical pursuit.
Hell, I ain't cheer-leading, I'm a-trolling for suckerfish. Now git outta my way, I think I see a lunker back there.


On this website, the preponderance of political posting is decidedly anti-conservative (but not pro- anything that I can discern). Therefore, it amuses me to provide information that supports the conservative agenda.

Posting libertarian screeds wouldn't be nearly as exciting, would it?
Hmm. Pro better public education. A constant, ad nauseum, rant of mine (stop the corporate profit wars (Iraq) and there is the money). Not a fix all but the best one I can come up with.

PS I would like a smaller gov't too, ours is ridiculous.

PSII I don't believe in a right wing conspiracy. Just unchecked, ueducated, greed, and self entitlement.

PSIII Just to put my money where my mouth is I am about to buy a Bentley. [:o)]
Shane is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #12 of 18 (permalink) Old 05-11-2005, 09:11 PM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
RE: Energy Policy

Quote:
That Guy - 5/11/2005 1:58 PM

Quote:
Botnst - 5/11/2005 1:44 PM

Quote:
That Guy - 5/11/2005 1:04 PM

Quote:
Botnst - 5/10/2005 9:58 PM


Hell, I ain't cheer-leading, I'm a-trolling for suckerfish. Now git outta my way, I think I see a lunker back there.


On this website, the preponderance of political posting is decidedly anti-conservative (but not pro- anything that I can discern). Therefore, it amuses me to provide information that supports the conservative agenda.

Posting libertarian screeds wouldn't be nearly as exciting, would it?
I understand where you are coming from, however I do miss more of your intellectually honest analysis on these items. I find it much more interesting reading than the trolling and cheerleading.

Personally, I've given up on hoping for any sort of accountability and transparency with this administration. I guess taking Scalia on duck hunts paid off for Mr. Cheney. GREAT! My faith in the independent judicial branch is strong as ever[xx(]
Thanks for the vote of near-confidence. But review your own thinking, here. You ask me for objectivity, which is fine and I certainly understand why you ask it of me. Why hold me to a higher standard than you hold for yourself?
I'm being intellectually honest here. I've posted how I truly feel about the topic. You haven't. Like I said, I know it will take away from your trolling capability, but I always enjoy it when you post your actual opinions on the topic rather than choosing to represent a viewpoint that is not truly and wholly your own.
Oh, honesty is what you want. What does that mean, exactly?

The best I can do for you, if honesty is what you seek, is to honestly answer, "it depends".

If you ask what I think the constitutionality is of executive privilege, well I don't see it enumerated in the constitution. So if the exec wants to be secretive I think they should present a compelling argument in favor of their position. Who decides what a fair argument is? Me? You? Well according to the constitution, that's the role of the judiciary. They heard the argument on appeal and they sided with the executive branch.

Why?

Because they accepted the executive argument that it needs private input in its deliberations. Th executive argued that since no votes were taken by a formal commitee and the people consulted were unpaid that there was no formal act of government involved requiring disclosure. One justice likened it to requiring disclosure of congressional staffers' deliberations with outside entities and citizens--which do not require disclosure, either.

From a libertarian point of view I don't like it worth a shit. I think, philosophically, that the gov should be fully transparent except for some few things that might put law officers, the military, and intelligence personnel in danger or might disclose mission, methods, and sources of military, police, and intelligence. But practically speaking, it would be catastrophic to have full public access to every gov flunkie. The gov would spend so much time responding that it would be even less effective and responsive than it is now.

From an environmentalist point of view, it sucks. I think the Repos in general are incredibly stupid and short-sighted when it comes to the environment and letting them be secretive in their planning prevents environmentalists from anticipating the next assault.

I don't believe a reasonable person who gives this issue more than a passing knee-jerk reaction could possibly give a completely truthful response without boring everybody shitless.

Bot
Botnst is offline  
post #13 of 18 (permalink) Old 05-12-2005, 01:03 AM
BenzWorld Member
 
djugurba's Avatar
 
Date registered: Oct 2002
Vehicle: '85 300TD
Location: Cape Cod
Posts: 244
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
RE: Energy Policy

strange, haven't heard any crabbing about 'activist judges' this week... but you would have had they decided differently, and for good reason.


I'm with Bot on the benefits of transparency. And how about good will gestures to the citizenry of the nation? Good will gestures such as allowing the citizens to know who it is who creates the laws that will soon be enacted? Nah..


The court, however, was not charged with deciding anything related to transparency, meerly clarifying if the group that met with cheney met the definition of an advisory panel (or some other term with a strict definition)
Because the membership of the panel had no clear legal mandate, and did not engage in a formal voting process, the court could not help but decide that it failed to meet the definition of an advisory panel. That's all the court did, and that is the legal nuance of this case.

Now, I think that the decision sets a stupid precedent, because so long as the exec. branch hand-selects secret policy consultants, meets behind closed doors, establishes a platform/agenda, drafts new legislation to be delivered to congress with the demand to pass it, whatever... without responding to a legal mandate or allowing the consultants to vote... the exec. branch can essentially side-step any transparency whatsoever.

That is a reality that nobody in a supposedly free nation of elected officials and lawmakers should relish.

'85 300TD Pastel Beige
361,500 miles and counting
djugurba is offline  
post #14 of 18 (permalink) Old 05-12-2005, 09:04 AM
BenzWorld Senior Member
 
That Guy's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: '01 C320
Location: Washington DC
Posts: 564
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
RE: Energy Policy

Quote:
Botnst - 5/11/2005 11:11 PM

I don't believe a reasonable person who gives this issue more than a passing knee-jerk reaction could possibly give a completely truthful response without boring everybody shitless.

Bot
Naaaah! Its good to know where you stand. I appreciate the effort. Personally, I'm more bothered by the chumminess between Cheney. Scalia should have recused himself.

Thanks, and please troll away!
That Guy is offline  
post #15 of 18 (permalink) Old 05-13-2005, 05:10 PM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
RE: Energy Policy

Quote:
djugurba - 5/12/2005 3:03 AM....

Good will gestures such as allowing the citizens to know who it is who creates the laws that will soon be enacted? Nah..

...
The president does not enact laws. That's Congress's job. The president can write suggestions to Congress but Congress, especially the Senate, is jealous of its' prerogatives. Even when they're all on the same team.

What the president does is executes the will of the people, through Congressional action. If Congress writes a law and gets it signed or overrides the veto, the president must follow the law. That has been a sticky thing for lots of presidents. The most successful presidents encouraged and cajoled, they did not confront and condemn. So if Bush wants to get his inititiates enacted into law, he has to convince both houses of Congress.

Recall that the majority of voters gave us the distribution of party power we now have and that this lopsided distribution has been getting more lopsided for 20 years. Unless the opposition can figure out a new and different approach, they'll be the Whigs of this century. Full of whining intellectual self-righteousness but absent a hint of power.
Botnst is offline  
post #16 of 18 (permalink) Old 05-13-2005, 06:30 PM
BenzWorld Member
 
djugurba's Avatar
 
Date registered: Oct 2002
Vehicle: '85 300TD
Location: Cape Cod
Posts: 244
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
RE: Energy Policy

thats a nice theory, but the reality is that certain presidents of late have sought to 'cash [his] political capital' by drafting policies and strong-arming his own party to push it through. denying this is blindness. The last two are especially guilty of this.
AND, the executive order has been used more in the past two presidencies than at any other time, in large measure to get things into law that might not suit congress' fancy.

oooh, lemme guess"
Quote:
79-300sd will write:
clinton started it
no, he didn't, but he did it like a champ.

'85 300TD Pastel Beige
361,500 miles and counting
djugurba is offline  
post #17 of 18 (permalink) Old 05-13-2005, 07:01 PM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
RE: Energy Policy

Quote:
djugurba - 5/13/2005 8:30 PM

thats a nice theory, but the reality is that certain presidents of late have sought to 'cash [his] political capital' by drafting policies and strong-arming his own party to push it through. denying this is blindness. The last two are especially guilty of this.
AND, the executive order has been used more in the past two presidencies than at any other time, in large measure to get things into law that might not suit congress' fancy.

oooh, lemme guess"
Quote:
79-300sd will write:
clinton started it
no, he didn't, but he did it like a champ.
Naah, I'm not going the 'blame Clinton route." Plus, Clinton couldn't and didn't strong-arm Congress, it was the contrary but Clinton finessed the hell out of them. The welfare reform is a fine example. They forced that on him until he could no longer avoid it. Then on TV at the State of the Union he said we were going to end welfare was we've known it. Masterful pre-emption of his opponent's most potent weapon. Clinton's Kung Fu was much more subtle than his opponents.

I don't think the current prez has railroaded anybody. You just cannot do that in our form of gov. That claim is what everybody who opposes a given president always says and that presidents supporters will always remeber the old fox as a statesman.

What the current occupant has done very effectively is given Congress cover by accepting leadership responsibility so that they can blame every event, intentional, contrived, invented or screwball on the president. And it works with just a bit more than 50% of voters. As long as he can continue taking the heat but avoiding the punishment he will continue successfully getting his agenda through.

here's when I think it will end: When Republicans in Congress become more concerned about their own presidential ambitions than whether the current agenda survives. There is already a bit of that from McCain, Voinovich, and whatsisname from Nebraska. As time gets attenuated, those boys, along with former and present members of the administration, and various Repo govs will all start trying to break from the pack, appear independent, suck-up to 'moderates' and 'independents' before the primaries. That will be the signal of lameduckiness for Bush.
Botnst is offline  
post #18 of 18 (permalink) Old 05-13-2005, 11:02 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
azimuth's Avatar
 
Date registered: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
RE: Energy Policy

Quote:
BackRoll23 - 5/11/2005 12:22 PM

Quote:

On this website, the preponderance of political posting is decidedly anti-conservative (but not pro- anything that I can discern).
Hence the success of AM talk stations. People just like to hear themselves bitch.
Or could it be that truth or perceived truth is more comfortable to listen to that lies and distortions or such perceived?

aborted Shop Forum member

azimuth is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Mercedes-Benz Forums > Off-Topic

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Mercedes-Benz Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











  • Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
     
    Thread Tools
    Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
    Email this Page Email this Page
    Display Modes
    Linear Mode Linear Mode



    Posting Rules  
    You may post new threads
    You may post replies
    You may not post attachments
    You may not edit your posts

    BB code is On
    Smilies are On
    [IMG] code is On
    HTML code is Off
    Trackbacks are On
    Pingbacks are On
    Refbacks are On

     

    Title goes here

    close
    video goes here
    description goes here. Read Full Story
    For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome