niyad
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-05-09 11:00 AM
Original message |
| what is the difference between the secret meetings with the USCOC and the secret energy meetings? |
|
so much for transparency.
|
| MNDemNY
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-05-09 11:03 AM
Response to Original message |
| 1. Silly ,this one involves OBAMA, so it is OK. |
|
After all. he knows best, we must give him wide latitude to play his "chess" game, dontchyaknow.
|
| quantass
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-05-09 11:43 AM
Response to Reply #1 |
| 7. THANK YOU! It needed to be said around here nt. |
| Teaser
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-05-09 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
| 20. it's said every day, by lots of different people |
|
so how much it *needed* to be said is debatable.
|
| niyad
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-05-09 11:44 AM
Response to Reply #1 |
| 9. I know, how silly of me. |
| Better Believe It
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-05-09 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
| uponit7771
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-05-09 11:08 AM
Response to Original message |
| 2. So Obama is going set policy with the USCOC like the Bush admin did with energy?!?! Come on!! Do you |
|
Edited on Thu Nov-05-09 11:09 AM by uponit7771
...guys see why some have been turned off by the constant nonobjective bashing?
Thx
|
| MNDemNY
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-05-09 11:12 AM
Response to Reply #2 |
| 3. It's the hypocrisy, stupid. |
|
do YOU GUYS see why some have been "turned off" by the hypocrisy?
|
| uponit7771
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-05-09 11:20 AM
Response to Reply #3 |
| 5. Again, where are you seeing the policies being set like the Bush admin did with the energy companies |
|
Having "secret meetings" is something that happens all the time in governments...
BTW: If it was really 'secret' how in the hell did you guys find out about it?
Thx
|
| niyad
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-05-09 11:44 AM
Response to Reply #5 |
| 8. oh, I don't know--uscoc is against the climate change bill, against consumer protection legislation, |
|
just for starters. do you honestly not see a problem here? apart from anything else, we were promised transparency, and so far, we really aren't getting it.
there is absolutely NO reason a damned corporate lobbying organization should be having ANY secret talks with the white house for ANY reason.
|
| niyad
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-05-09 11:46 AM
Response to Reply #2 |
| 10. non-objective bashing? you don't see a problem with secret meetings with a group |
|
whose ONLY interest is corporate protection?
|
| Sinti
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-05-09 11:13 AM
Response to Original message |
| 4. USCOC = US Chamber of Commerce? |
|
either way, secret meeting = secret meeting. I don't think you'll get the minutes from many meetings, but you should probably get a list of the participants.
|
| niyad
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-05-09 11:49 AM
Response to Reply #4 |
| 11. yes, the chamber of commerce. |
| Hell Hath No Fury
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-05-09 11:36 AM
Response to Original message |
| stevenleser
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-05-09 12:00 PM
Response to Original message |
| 12. Obama has recently said is is going to release a list of all White House visitors |
|
That makes the meeting(s) non-secret.
|
| niyad
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-05-09 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #12 |
| 13. releasing the names (and I seem to remember hearing they were only going to release |
|
about 60% of the list--and why were they fighting the release in the first place???) is NOT the same as releasing the record of the meetings. surely you can understand that small distinction?????
|
| niyad
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-05-09 12:09 PM
Response to Original message |
| 14. wow--just asking a question gets an unrec-- pompoms out in force today |
| katandmoon
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-05-09 12:25 PM
Original message |
| niyad
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-05-09 01:29 PM
Response to Original message |
| Bitwit1234
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-05-09 12:25 PM
Response to Original message |
| 15. BUT the white house gave the names of the people |
|
involved in the Chamber of Congress meeting, cheney went to the supreme court and his buddy scalia to keep the names anonymous. After he bribed scalia with a hunting trip to Florida Everglades. Scalia who said he could be impartial and then ruled in favor of cheney. THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE. The white house can meet with who they want, but the tell you who they met with.
|
| niyad
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-05-09 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #15 |
| 17. okay, let's try this again. until quite recently the obama white house was also refusing to release |
|
the visitor logs--remember?
and, just to make it very simple, knowing who was at a meeting is not the same thing as knowing what was discussed. releasing the names is NOT the same as releasing the minutes. and NOTHING should be secret about meetings with that damned corporate whore lobbying group known as the uscoc (unless, of course, they are planning something really nasty to screw the citizens and favour the corporations.)
|
| Teaser
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-05-09 01:29 PM
Response to Reply #17 |
| 21. Administrations fight to protect what they see as the powers of their office |
|
oftentimes these policies are simply ingrained in administration staff. That it has been reversed to the extent it has is remarkable and offers some hope on the matter.
|
| phleshdef
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-05-09 12:26 PM
Response to Original message |
| 16. You mean the secret meetings that aren't a secret? |
| niyad
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-05-09 01:06 PM
Response to Reply #16 |
| 18. do you have a link to the minutes of those meetings? are they posted anywhere? |
|
if not, the damned meetings are secret.
|
| ieoeja
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-05-09 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #18 |
| 23. I don't think that word means what you think it means. |
|
If you tell your significant other you're going to meet with me to discuss some business, but then do not tell your significant other what exactly we discussed, then our meeting was "private". But our meeting was not secret, because you told your significant other we were meeting.
On the other hand, when I met with your significant other at a motel while you were at work, THAT meeting was secret.
:evilgrin:
|
| niyad
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-05-09 04:56 PM
Response to Reply #23 |
| 24. nice job of parsing. if the minutes of those meetings are not publicly available, they are secret. |
|
Edited on Thu Nov-05-09 04:57 PM by niyad
this is not about husbands and wives, this is our lives, our money, our jobs, our economy. what part of that do you not get?
NOTHING about any admin meetings with the uscoc has any business being secret or private, period.
|
| LSK
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-05-09 04:57 PM
Response to Original message |
| 25. Obama has a longtime relationship with the USCOC????? |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts)     |
Wed Jul 30th 2025, 12:37 PM
Response to Original message |
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
