Slashdot Mirror
White House Refused To Open Unwelcome EPA E-Mail
epfreed writes "The White House lost a case in the Supreme Court about the need for the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases. So the EPA made new rule. And now the NYTimes reports that the White House did not want to get these new rules from the EPA about greenhouse gases. So they did not open the email."
Frankly I'm pretty sure my boss would give me the sack for that sort of BS.
Prediction: The real iPhone killer is going to be sex robots from Japan. Think about it.
How did they know about the rules if they never opened the e-mail?
Also after 7 years, is anyone surprised?
i didn't want to rtfa. so i didn't click on the link.
Looks like I won't be opening many work emails from now on. Those emails from my bank might go unread, too. It's about time they showed some leadership!
Monkey see no evil, hear no evil, do no evil? ...
Monkey see no evil, hear no evil, do evil anyways?
The only thing sadder and more despicable at this point than the Bush administration are the Democrats in Congress who have been on their knees for the last two years after promising to hold this imperial administration accountable.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
A Bush official, with fingers in his ears, was quoted as saying: "Nyah! Nyah! Nyah! Nyah! I can't hear you! Nyah! Nyah! Nyah! ...."
My blog
Awesome! So it's cool if I just leave all that important-looking IRS mail in an unopened pile by the door, right?
DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
Given the government's poor record with computer security, I wouldn't open ANY documents emailed me. I would imagine there are policies in place that would forbid the acceptance of such messages. This story could well be somebody at the EPA insisting on total asshattery.
And if its something official and important, why is it being emailed anyway? Shouldn't it be, like, printed out and physically handed to somebody? Maybe signed, stamped, notarized, and whatever else?
No matter how bad this looks on the Bush adminstration, they just wont open the emails about not opening emails. They'll never know.
IANAL but doesn't this amount to the whole ignorance of a law isn't a defense kind of thing? If an individual or a company violates EPA standards and they get caught they get spanked with fines and such. So by their rational if the rest of us don't know about the new rules we get off the hook too right? Works for me!
Maybe the EPA shouldn't have mentioned V1agra in the subject...
...one of the senior E.P.A. officials said, "That's not what the administration wants to show. They want to show that the Clean Air Act can't work."That's just it, isn't it? The Bush administration is convinced that the Federal government cannot work and they do everything in in their power to prove it at every turn.
Heck of a job Brownie!
my insights may be modded Funny, but at least some of my jokes are modded Insightful
This is a nuts use of email. For something this important you'd expect the documents to be sent by courier or registered post, signature on delivery etc. That way, you can prove they've received it and if they've chosen not to read it it's their bad. Anyway, why should the White House need to see this? The court has decided the EPA has the authority to introduce the rule and it's then up to the judiciary to enforce it. The legislature is surely out of the loop by this point.
"'I pass the test,' she said. 'I will diminish, and go into the West, and remain Galadriel.'"
- JRR Tolkien.
If I don't open my bills do they still exist? Sounds like a conundrum worthy of SchrÃdinger.
The Long Now Foundation
Really show's the maturity of our leaders there.
Modding Trolls +1 inciteful since 1999
Read this to get Free Paige Sex: Half of the Republicans in the office would have read it in a flash...
Laters Sol "Have you found the secrets of the universe? Asked Zebade "I'm sure I left them here somewhere"
I'm surprised it wasn't claimed as one of the "Lost" email messages. Oh, they can't claim it was lost, as the lost email was actually "read" messages.
We can't endanger the Executive after all by making him do something that might cause himself to pass out, leaving us without effective leadership.
Brackets contain world's first nanosig, highly magnified:[.]
Based on the experience of the last seven years, non-reality-based decision making is a powerful tool for gathering and holding power. We should celebrate the Bush administration's success in contesting or ignoring every bit of evidence that contests their highly profitable worldview. After all, didn't a lot of people vote for Bush because they wanted a president who says what he means and means what he says?
Anyway, listening to scientists just encourages to make up stuff that upsets people. Evolution, the germ theory of disease, the greenhouse effect . . . we'd all be happier and more content if we all behaved like Ben Stein would like us to: God-fearing authority-worshipping dumbfucks.
This is like the behavior of a child who thinks that covering their eyes means no one around can see them. Does Pres. Bush have dementia? First his speech, and now his age behavior? A fellow at my church has Dementia and he's starting to behave a bit like a child in this way. It's not fun for anyone to go through, but the White House? Next we'll see folks walking around in diapers saying they forget how to use their computers.
If you think "If I ignore it, it'll go away", then you're probably ignorant. If you're the President of the United States and you think to yourself, "If I ignore this official message sent here by the EPA, maybe it'll go away", then you're criminally ignorant.
Other possible subject lines: "Get Viagra / Cialis without a prescription"
"VP Cheney shot another friend in the face"
"Bum Fights Vol 3 now available on DVD"
"American Idol canceled"
"Mobilize the Navy! North Dakota invades South Dakota"
"Senator Byrd called you a pussy!"
One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
They remain the lesser of two evils, but evil nonetheless.
Blar.
For the past sixty years or more, judicial despotism has increased until now, you have governors and legislators of states waiting to see what some court will rule on an issue before they can proceed. This is NOT what the Framers intended, and unless we get things back to the balance of powers between the branches of government things are going to become more despotic.
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
Which is why they took pretzels off the White House menu.....
"Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." -- Eric Hoffer
Bush: Is it hot in here...because my face is feeling a little red.
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed H
There's too many problems with it. If you're sending something official, there's no reliable record that it was even delivered.
What's next? The EPA sending an IM about new regulations?
Using email in this matter is completely inappropriate, and the ./ community shouldn't get so slackjawed because of it.
Does anyone know? Does there have to be some kind of catch all pardon from the President or something at the end of his term? (I hearby pardon all members of the Whitehouse staff of all crimes) That thing about firing Federal Attorney's who wouldn't procecute opponents of the White House during elections seems like something that shouldn't be just dropped.
Put in a spoofed "From:" line reading "Prince Bandar."
I'm never reading email again at home or at work and then no one can expect anything from me. I can't believe no one has thought of this before.
Its about time they get held accountable for wanting to manipulate the rules to their benefit all the time, if we get pulled over by a cop when we didnt quite stop at a stop sign, we get a ticket, we can try to get out of it, but in the end we have to comply, so does the US when it comes to these rules
From TOA:
Mr. Fratto could have saved himself some time and been more honest by simply smiling and saying "fuck you."
we se the "LA LA LA!! I CAN"T HEAR YOU!! LA LA LA LA!!!" theory of government in action.
I'd ask why the hell people would seriously consider anyone connected with this Administration for any sort of public service ever again, but I fear you'd tell me and I'm just not up for it anymore.
No Longer a Menace to Society.
Alexandria Morrigan born 2/22/01 l. 20.5in wt. 7 lbs. 5 oz.
This makes it ok to ignore your Fed Tax Bill now?
Going on the presumption this stands, the next president, and future presidents, can do the same thing. If Obama happens to be elected and then does the same thing, he can fall back on, "My predecessor set the standard and I am just following his lead."
Oh sure, the Republicans will whine and moan and have hissy fits, but they brought it on themselves because they wanted the president to have these vast, uncharted powers despite their constant harping about judges not following the Constitution.
So don't look at this in a bad light, think of it as insurance. All whining and complaining can immediately be silenced by simply saying, "Bush did it so it must be ok."
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Give the man some credit. Bush is faithfully serving the people who got him into office.
They suckered the dupes into thinking they were getting a straight-shooting native-born Texan who was the kind of feller who'd drink a beer with them, keep the military out of nation-building boondoggles, hated taxes, and loved little unborn babies.
Now they've managed to convince us, and Congress, that we're better off not making him and his cronies accountable.
Bush and Cheney will spend their lives after the White House getting big bucks serving on the boards of Exxon, Halliburton, and Soylent Corporation ,while we are left to deal with the financial and ecological mess they created.
Suckers. We're all suckers.
It just might. A president, at least according to precedent, can issue a blanket pardon. From the Factcheck.org link below,
Q: Can a president issue a blanket pardon to an individual for crimes that may have been committed in the past but have not yet been discovered?
A:Yes. That's just what Gerald Ford did when he granted "a full, free, and absolute pardon" to Richard Nixon for crimes he "has committed or may have committed" while in office.
All he'd have to do would be to include all senior members of the administration. Could he include himself? I bet he'd think he could - which means he would.
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/can_a_president_issue_a_blanket_pardon.html
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The EPA, after hearing about this, decided to photoshop the washington monument into a giant middle finger.
"The dimensions of the middle finger we wanted to use were just astronomically large, so we had to improvise", the EPA was quoted as saying earlier today. The American public is apparently fashioning a similarly giant boot to kick the current administration out with in a few months.
stuff |
So where is the press on this one? Why isn't someone grilling the Whitehouse every day over these blatent breaches of trust?
In the Words of Andrew Jackson. "Justice Marshall has made his decision. Let him enforce it." For those who don't know American History, this came after a decision was made by Chief Justice Marshall of the US Supreme Court. Frankly, I don't see why bush can't do the same thing...
Most courts would hold that an e-mail is not an official communication. I can not inform my tenants via e-mail that they are being evicted. I can not create a binding sale contract via e-mail. etc. etc. Sure , most of our interoffice communication is via e-mail, and we choose to uphold it as legitimate within our work environments, but the law still sees e-mail as unofficial. /. are willing to overlook the fact that e-mail is not a means of official communication and is also not a 100% reliable means of communication in order to bash Bush.
Also, did someone admit that they received this e-mail but did not open it? I don't read that in the article. For all we know, the e-mail was never received, or is sitting in some spam folder because somewhere in the e-mail it said that the environment is f*cked.
Of course, we here on
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
The President is the Chief Executive Officer of the Executive Branch.
All power of the Executive Branch comes as proxy for the Chief Executive.
The Executive Branch does not have the authority to create obligations which the Chief Executive officer does not want.
The EPA is part of the Executive Branch.
The SCOTUS ruling endorsed the authority of the EPA to create such regulations, it did not empower the EPA to create them exclusive of the Executive Officer. The SCOTUS did not somehow turn the EPA into a fourth branch of the Federal Government.
There's no "there" there.
It really is that simple.
TFA leaves out an important piece of information. This is the legislation that specifically relates to carbon dioxide emissions. Making this a much more controversial issue than a standard EPA rule.
The EPA already regulates some greenhouse gas emissions on the basis of protecting the ozone layer. It regulates other chemicals based on their direct effect on humans. But at this time, it does not regulate chemicals based on the greenhouse effect.
One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
John McCain says he's completely computer illiterate, and has to rely on other people to do anything on the computer for him. Now, given that George W. Bush has said that "doesn't read newspapers" - what're the odds *he's* computer literate? Or that either of them would hire (or keep) people who felt that skill was far more important than they did?
Whether you think this is genuine incompetence or just plausible deniability - the fact remains that we collectively "hired" someone who said he lacked a vital skill for the job, and a fair portion of Americans are seriously considering hiring another one.
If you were willfully ignorant, and had to rely exclusively on the caliber of people a willfully ignorant person would hire as advisers - you too would end up having to:
-Say things like "$4.00 a gallon gas? I hadn't heard about that".
-Wait until your staff put together a DVD for you to illustrate what a "heckuva" job that ex-Head of an Equestrian club manager you hired to run FEMA was doing responding to a Category 5 hurricane that hit a below sea level city.
-Claim that "Everyone thought he had Weapons of Mass Destruction".
-Respond that "No one could have predicted" terrorists would fly highjacked jumbo jets into the building they previously tried to blow up with a truck bomb.
-Assume that promising to "Protect and Uphold the Constitution" consisted primarily of keeping your hands of the interns, and doing a lot of bicycling.
So let's not complain about this too much folks. We hired an incurious idiot to run the company. Just be thankful the company didn't go completely bankrupt before we started paying more attention to applicant's resumes.
I'm actually far more surprised than thankful. If we make it to 2009 without China foreclosing on us, it's going to feel the way it does to wake up safe in bed when you have no memory of how you got home from the previous night's party: thankful you got home alive but still worried about kind of damage you've done to your car, credit line, or reputation in the process.
I wish I could ignore all of my utlity, IRS and other bills this way. I could claim "Executive Privilege" like George does.
Some Rockefeller quotes:
"The absolute cynical manipulation, deliberately cynical manipulation, to shape American public opinion and 69 percent of the people, at that time, it worked, they said 'we want to go to war,'"
"
"In making the case for war, the administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when it was unsubstantiated, contradicted or even nonexistent," he said.
How is that not lying?
He was also very deceitful. Asking "Could a drone carry a WMD?" is just asking someone to confirm a bias a disregard facts.
The question should be "Do we have evidence of a drone carrying an WMD?"
Of course they 'could', but they also could carry Buddy Holly CD's. Doesn't mean they are.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Actually, him passing out could maybe get us some effective leadership.
Then again, a few more people would have to hold their breath to make that happen.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
You're right though, supply and demand will win out in the end. Personally I'm not especially disappointed by the high oil & gas prices. Maybe it will finally cause some responsible behavior here in the US.
It's strange, making me suspicious of your thesis, that with all the hyperlinks in that Washington Post article, not one points to the full text of the report it discusses, nor even to complete paragraphs or even complete sentences that specify, for example, on [sic] nuclear or biological weapons, just which of the "president's statements 'were substantiated by intelligence information.'" And it's strange that, among so many excerpts, all the excerpts from that article are sentence fragments, necessitating the improper grammar repeated ad nauseam, "On [fallacy]?. The president's statements 'were substantiated [by
And, no, most of Congress did not know at that time anything but the cherry-picked version manufactured by Douglas Feith & co.
"I can't imagine how things could get any worse!" (some guy) "That could just be failure of imaginatioÂn on your p
So, they just deliberately avoided provably knowing some information that they didn't want to comply with? That's nothing. When the whitehouse heard about the supreme court's recent decision regarding treatment of prisoners at Gitmo, they actually sent an email saying "We're rubber and you're glue..."
The juvenile behavior of these people... doesn't even surprise me anymore...
There are none so blind as those that wish not to see...
"Not an actor, but he plays one on TV."
The report is that he held his hands over his ears and began repeating loudly in a sing-song voice, "I can't hear you! I can't HEEAAAR you!!"
> But willful ignorance of obvious facts is never admirable.
It is, however, a job requirement for a cabinet position the Bush administration.
Call the OP what he is: a liar.
Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
When they saw the sender on the email, they probably figured the email just said "The Dude abides" and asked for a new carpet for the EPA office.
I can't hear you
...of these asshats I just get this feeling that our country is run by a bunch of highschool kids.
Well, except that the kids would have the respect to actually try a little.
I'm not gonna read it and you can't make me! And if I don't read it, I don't have to do anything about it!
Thank $DIETY that there's only seven more months of this sort of crap. The hell of it is that these bozos could screw things more royally than anyone could ever imagine in those seven months.
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
now let them enforce it". They will probably ignore it until they leave office. Seriously, the office of the president is out of control, skirting the fringes of dictatorship, signing statements, executive privilege, the unitary executive theory etc.
Which is why I would like to see the office abolished.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
Russ Cargill: [enters the Oval Office] President Schawarzenegger.
President Schwarzenegger: Ja. That is me.
Russ Cargill: The pollution in Springfield has reached crisis levels
President Schwarzenegger: Ach! Everything is "crisis this" and "end-of-the-world that"! No one opens with a joke! I miss Danny DeVito.
Russ Cargill: You like jokes, huh? Well, stop me if you've heard this one.
[holds up cage with the mutant squirral]
President Schwarzenegger: [gasp] Look at all those angry eyes and pointy teeth! It's like Christmas at the Kennedy Compound!
Russ Cargill: Mr. President, you chose me, Russ Cargill, most successful man in America, to head the EPA, the least successful organization. That's why I've narrowed your choices down to five unthinkable options.
[spreads the files on the President's desk]
Russ Cargill: Each one will cause untold misery and...
President Schwarzenegger: [points to File #3] I pick Number Three!
Russ Cargill: Really? You don't want to read them first?
President Schwarzenegger: I was elected to *lead*, not to *read*. Number Three!
Make America grate again!
What exactly does "grenhouse gas regulation" mean anyway? Whatever laws were passed would need to have some pretty serious teeth in order to enforce. Basic human needs are being met with greenhouse gas production. Getting people to go against their own survival needs and suffer great hardship for this abstract idea of "saving the planet" is not going to be easy. I guess you could just raise federal gas taxes to a very high (I am thinking $30/gallon) level. That should at least somewhat reduce CO2 emmision from car exhaust. Only the rich would be able to afford to drive a car or use non nuclear-electric public transportation. Also create a huge tax on all electricity that is not created by nuclear or hydro/solar/wind etc. I am thinking of something like $50/KWh for non-nuclear electricity. You could also outlaw the use of heating oil and natural gas or ration it to very small amounts per household. Or combustion based home heating systems including fireplaces could be outlawed. Instead those who live in cold climates would be required to install electric heating (or use electric space heaters) so that the electricity could either be highly taxed or generated from nuclear sources. Can you imagine the increase in property values for houses already in areas with electricity from nuclear sources?
Humans and other animals create CO2. I would imagine that with so many billions of people on the planet that we contribute a rather large amount of it to the atmosphere. Expensive permits could be required for exercising since running or playing sports or just being a male and especially a large male means producing more than your fair share of CO2. So anyone in excess of a certain weight (say 120 lbs) could pay a greenhouse tax of say $1000 per year for every 20 lbs over 120. In addition you could institute a 1 child per family rule and require an expensive permit even for that one child. Just imagine the amount of CO2 produced by a human over their lifetimes.
If we really are in that much danger of destroying all life on earth then these sorts of actions would be necessary. You could even make it simple and just outlaw combustion of any kind and institute the death penalty for anyone caught violating the For the Future of our Children anti-greenhouse gas laws.
At the very least very strong penalties would be a prerequisite for even the slightest chance of enforcing these sorts of regulations. I am thinking at least 10 years in prison for minor violations or executions for harder to enforce rules (like the use of combustion for home heating) or the possession of heating oil or wood (under the "intent to combust" statute).
I can't help wondering if the people supporting such measures are really thinking through all the specific implications of what would be required. They seem to believe that all that would be required to stop global warming in its tracks would be to outlaw SUVs or something. They never seem to want to get specific. And only a minority seem to be in favor of going nuclear on an immense scale with nuclear reactors in every neighborhood. If we really want to significantly reduce "greenhouse gas" production replacing every single one of our electric plants with nuclear plants and then outlawing all combustion in horseless carriages would at least be a realistic start. One that really would be more than just Green Theater. Take what you want, God said, and pay for it. The problem with most environmentalists is they don't believe in the second part or they believe that only the super-rich will be paying. I just don't understand this sort of thinking.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
One word.
Nine Eleven.
specially when its a willful and premeditated evasion tactic.
Its another actionable thing I'd rack up against this administration.
Bush has really started off the millennium right.
He pissed off all our allies, trampled our rights, got the US into wars that have killed thousands of US citizens and hundreds of thousands of Afghani and Iraqi citizens, and now he's saying "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LA LA LA.'
Does he seriously think we're NOT going to prosecute him after January?
I'm betting he goes like Ceauescu went.
Claiming to be loved by all the people...
What a big buffoon-eared dork.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
If the news is bad/unpleasant/not politically 'correct', don't kill the messenger - just don't read it!
If I am not for myself, then who will be for me? If I am only for myself, what am I? If not now, when?
The imaginary uranium ore was supposed to have come from Niger and not Nigeria. It was another childish attack on the French since a French mining company has all the yellowcake in that country.
The good people of San Francisco already have GWB's legacy organised - they're proposing to name their new sewerage plant after him.
http://presidentialmemorial.wordpress.com/
If you are an SF resident, do your duty, and sign up.
Do as you would be done to.
President Arnold Schwarzenegger: "I was elected to LEAD, not to READ [emails]."
-b
No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
It is not the executive's place to create or ignore obligations(laws). He can create policy regarding conduct within the framework of law -- he can decide how to execute the law. Congress created the obligation in law, the executive branch is then responsible for executing said law. The judicial branch judged the effort in executing the law as interpreted by the supreme court as lacking and ordered compliance. Basic checks and balances. In this case the executive has overstepped his constitutional bounds.
First, nothing from the Huffington Post can be used as a source... EVER. It is opinions posted by the most ignorant of Americans, celebrities. If anything, having something said in the Huffington post should be used as COUTNER-evidence to whatever was said. However, I did notice that there was no mention of Sandy Berger, the Clinton security advisor stealing top secret documents and cutting them up with scissors during the 9-11 investigation. I guess that was no big deal, what with Bush lying and all.
But, speaking of willful ignorance of obvious facts, if you go back to my first post, you will read this:
"There has been some debate over how 'imminent' a threat Iraq poses. I do believe Iraq poses an imminent threat. I also believe after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. . . . To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? I do not think we can." Who said that? Rockefeller himself. So, was Rockefeller lying when he said that quote or was he lying when wrote that paragraph you quoted? Should he be impeached too? What about all the other people that claimed that Iraq was a threat? Should they be impeached? You accuse me of ignoring the facts, yet you sit here and call Bush a liar when so many others said the EXACT SAME THING. So, when you say, They all lied. I'm not a lawyer, but I'd say it's obvious that in lying about matters of national security, with the result of initiating war despite lack of any clear and present danger in the world of fact, they all knowingly undermined the United States' ability to confront our real enemies, thus giving them comfort. Ergo, they all committed treason." So, should ALL the people in the link I just provided, including Nancy Pelosi, Bill Clinton, Sandy Berger, John Kerry, Robert Byrd, Ted Kennedy, and the oracle himself, Al Gore all be tried for treason? Tell me again how I'm the one who is "willfully ignorant of the facts"?Let's look at another paragraph from Rockefeller's report:
The intelligence reporting did support the conclusion that chemical and biological weapons were within Iraq's technological capability, that Iraq was trying to procure dual-use materials that could have been used to produce these weapons, and that uncertainties existed about whether Iraq had fully destroyed its pre-Gulf War stocks of weapons and precursors. Why didn't we know? Because Iraq threw out the UN inspectors, which was a direct violation of the cease-fire agreement that was signed after the first gulf war. There were 16 other such violations. Of course, this is excusing the whole trying to assassinate a former US President, firing on US and UN personnel, and a credible warning from foreign intelligence agencies claiming that a terrorist attack from Iraq was imminent. Russian President Vladimir Putin said yesterday that his intelligence service had warned the Bush administration before the U.S. invasion of Iraq that Saddam Hussein's government was planning attacks against U.S. targets both inside and outside the country. Still, given all of the above, each a justification for war by itself, it appears that somehow, I'm the one with willful ignorance of the facts, even though I've just given you so many that you will willfully remain ignorant of.There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
> But willful ignorance of obvious facts is never admirable.
It is, however, a job requirement for a cabinet position the Bush administration.
Call the OP what he is: a liar.
Liar? Prove it? If not, STFU as you are the one lying.There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Although the EPA did some good work in their early years, once Carol Browner took over their mandate seemed to be "Let's Harass Big Business For Sport," and "We Can Make Stuff Up!" They have become a junk science machine that causes a lot of harm and very little good.
Deleting E-Mail from the EPA is a good start. But a better approach would be to delete the EPA.
...on the books as a crime.
It's another "tragic failure of leadership". The time to impeach someone is long overdue.
Truth is a matter of perspective. Wear the other guy's shoes before you dismiss him.
Masterful riposte there mister RNC.
Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
This is willful, blatant disregard for one of the most important principles in the US Constitution, that of checks and balances.
The legislative branch passed a law requiring action by the executive branch.
Agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency operate as rogue legislative bodies. They create regulations, which generally are not laws passed by Congress.
There are no checks and balances between the EPA and the Executive Branch, because the EPA itself is unconstitutional.
I'm no expert on constitutional or criminal law, but I'm pretty sure you can't apply pardons to convictions that don't yet exist. I'm sure Bush will try and preemptively pardon Cheney and Rumsfeld, but unless they've been convicted of a crime, there's absolutely nothing to pardon.
"We are Microsoft. You shall be assimilated. Competition is futile."
The conspiracy theories are interesting, but house-of-cardish.
Perhaps, among the short-term profiteers, there are those in the "know" in the industry, who realize that demand has already outstripped supply, and supply is going to forever decrease. Furthermore, oil is energy, and is fundamental, and may be the straw the breaks the camels back on the perpetual-growth-myth the is the core of our economic system.
Regardless, the situation is highly unpredictable, and the stakes are huge. The market has predicted the price of oil as correctly has possible.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
For one, because he was never under oath. Second, he never exactly lied, they merely "selectively observed" some facts, and "selectively neglected" others.
The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life... if we don't have any moral regard for the spirit of the law, then we could end up with leaders like in Myanmar or Zimbabwe. No amount of clever words can save you from amorality.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
So, should ALL the people in the link I just provided, including Nancy Pelosi, Bill Clinton, Sandy Berger, John Kerry, Robert Byrd, Ted Kennedy, and the oracle himself, Al Gore all be tried for treason?
Do you think they should?
Origins: All of the quotes listed above are substantially correct reproductions of statements made by various Democratic leaders regarding Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's acquisition or possession of weapons of mass destruction. However, some of the quotes are truncated, and context is provided for none of them — several of these quotes were offered in the course of statements that clearly indicated the speaker was decidedly against unilateral military intervention in Iraq by the U.S.
If so, on what grounds? No, they did not say "THE EXACT SAME THING." They made similar statements, when discussing the real dangers of Iraq, but they did not ignore contradictory facts and they did not run a publicity campaign for the purpose of waging a war of aggression in Iraq.
First, nothing from the Huffington Post can be used as a source... EVER. It is opinions posted by the most ignorant of Americans, celebrities. If anything, having something said in the Huffington post should be used as COUTNER-evidence to whatever was said.
In my opinion, discarding any one article merely because it appears in the Huffington Post [or any other source] would be to subscribe to the premise of guilt by association, which I do not. Heh, I held my nose and read the article you posted from snopes. You're entitled to your opinions. Everybody else is equally entitled to our opinions, and that includes everybody who disagrees. That's life. The subject at hand is not difference of opinion, but irresponsible and dishonest representation of fact in the pursuit of others' opinions, voters' opinions, in one of the gravest of all political matters, declaration of war. To dismiss a fact merely because it's expressed by a person, or in a journal, with which you have a difference of opinion is to make the very same type of error as we are discussing.
However, I did notice that there was no mention of Sandy Berger, the Clinton security advisor stealing top secret documents and cutting them up with scissors during the 9-11 investigation. I guess that was no big deal, what with Bush lying and all.
That's a disgrace, no doubt about it and no argument, but it is not currently "news." It was not omitted from that article because of Democratic bias. That was the correct professional journalistic decision.
Russian President Vladimir Putin said yesterday that his intelligence service had warned the Bush administration before the U.S. invasion of Iraq that Saddam Hussein's government was planning attacks against U.S. targets both inside and outside the country.
Vladimir Putin, no matter how friendly he may be nor how pure his soul, is primarily responsible for advancing the interests of Russia, not of the United States. As those tend to overlap these days, it is wise to be receptive to any tips he offers, to take them seriously. But because he is primarily responsible not to us but to a foreign power, the correct next step is to validate what he says independently, with U.S. intelligence assets and never take him, nor any other foreign power, on feith. "Russian President Vladimir Putin said" is not relevant rebuttal to the findings of the U.S. Congress, for this U.S. citizen.
Granted, Saddam Hussein was not in full compliance with terms of treaties he signed. It is also worth noting, however, that his invasion of Kuwait was in response to diagonal oil drilling from Kuwait into Earth under Iraq and that oil was as much a motive for the defense of Kuwait against Iraq as it was a motive for Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, so the U.S., and especially t
"I can't imagine how things could get any worse!" (some guy) "That could just be failure of imaginatioÂn on your p
This is the sort of stunt you'd expect from a 6 year-old, sticking his fingers in his ear so as to not hear you.
Wow, can this President act more immature?
Uh, I mean, "Mod up, funny."
I apologize for the extra "ia." I plead recent [inadvertent, obviously!] exposure to Fox News and I beg your pardon.
"I can't imagine how things could get any worse!" (some guy) "That could just be failure of imaginatioÂn on your p
Oh, you meant they refuse to formally acknowledge U.S. human activity somehow controls the greenhouse effect. That's very different. What do you mean, "somehow"? Did you fail high school chemistry or just skip science education altogether?
"I can't imagine how things could get any worse!" (some guy) "That could just be failure of imaginatioÂn on your p
Let me grab an envelope... ok...
Now my cat... and the camera...
GIMP-shop the text in, and... Done!
Posted to lolcats!
Heaven forbid the White House read a letter containing a mysterious white substance known as "The Polar Ice Caps". They won't read letters about how global warming is causing climate change, but they will read the letters that have anthrax in them.
The Rapture is NOT an exit strategy.
So the submitter made summary, editor not check summary, summary not made much sense.
No, Cheney would still be running the show, just like now.
One swallow does not a fellatrix make
...and perhaps Mr. Thompson might like to comment?
IX CCXLIX XVII II CLVII CXVI CCXXVII XCI CCXVI LXV LXXXVI CXCVII XCIX LXXXVI CXXXVI CXCII
"2) During that previous warm period europe did really really really well."
This is remarkably naive. The same warm period worked utter devastation in other parts of the world. We live in a globalized economy. Unless you intend to live like a 12th-century serf, you might want to consider the point of origin of your gasoline, clothing, computer equipment and much of what you buy at the supermarket. We live in a globalized economy.
From a review of Brian Fagan's "The Great Warming" http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/21/books/21book.html :
"The debit side is appalling: widespread drought, catastrophic rainfall, toppled dynasties, ruined civilizations. Abandoned Maya temples in the Yucatan and the desolation of Angkor Wat, supreme achievement of the Khmer empire, bear witness to climatic change against which royal power and priestly magic proved impotent."
I can't believe that somebody modded that drivel +3: Insightful...
1) we KNOW for a FACT that it was warmer in the 1200-1400 years than it is today. They grew grapes and made wine on the British Isles then. We're still at least 5 degrees C from being able to do that today. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/jun/30/foodanddrink.shoppingBloody cheats, they must have used a time machine to send grapes that can't possibly be grown locally back to 2005 (or maybe they took them from the medieval warm times!). Reality called, the british wine industry has been producing locally from the 70s. The climate has been so good lately that an English red wine won an international prize in 2006.
3) CO2 is not nearly as potent a greenhouse gas as H2O or methane. It accounts for a tiny fraction of the atmosphere. In short, marginally speaking, increased CO2 levels will have a very small effect on temperature compared to a similar increase in H20 or methane. Why aren't we regulating those gasses?If only the atmosphere had a way to regulate its H2O content... that would be swell. Maybe we could call it rain!
Point 2, 4 and 5 are left as an exercise to the reader... they have been brought up and discussed/debunked to death in any climate discussion for the last two years.
It's never helped me before, but then I don't think I could get away with torturing people without trial either.
Masterful riposte there mister RNC.
It goes like this. You call me a liar, yet, I have told no lies. You can point to no lies that I have told, and yet you call me a liar. Now tell me, genius, if I'm not lying and you are calling me a liar, who is the liar here?There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
But can't they just intercept the IP packet and read the email's contents first?
That's like saying there's no substitute for going-to-the-Louvre because it's the best and going to the Met is just not the same.
Here's a substitute for oil: tell your boss you have to work from home 2 days a week.
Going without is a perfectly viable substitute, in economic terms. If it's not worth demanding this from the boss, then gas is not yet expensive enough, or you live too close to the office.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
"I was elected to lead, not to read." *sigh*
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler" - Einstein
It's been the defense all this time, a war under false pretenses? That's ok, the "intelligence Community" told him those false pretenses.
Who do they answer to? Who elected them? Why won't the People take back that power from them?
You can't take the sky from me...
Like I said, a few more people would have to hold their breath. Or be submerged.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Gee, I wonder if submarines and space stations designers just go "oh, carbon oxides? Those are emitted by all animal life, we don't have to worry about those!".
You can't take the sky from me...
If future Democrats are as weak and cowardly as this bunch, I doubt any Republican will object to them staying in power as long as they like.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
I'm perfectly happy letting you have the last word, so go ahead and savor your little, um, victory.
Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
Yeah...but at least they didn't use a serious of pathetically obvious lies to embroil my country in an un-needed and dishonorable conflict.
That's a big difference maker for me.
Blar.
There's just so much wrong with the actions of the government... but this just drives me nuts:
"...saying the new lawâ(TM)s approach was preferable and climate change required global, not regional, solutions"
It's this bogus "it's not our problem, it's everyone's problem" crap that keeps us all stagnant.
Tactical genius, the White House has load of methods of dealing with bad news that are bordering on the brilliant: http://www.236.com/news/2008/06/25/the_white_house_is_rubber_ever_7365.php
lulz!@!!1! %^)
O lord, bless this thy holy hand grenade, that with it thou mayest blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy.
you saw Congress pass any law that wasn't bought and paid for by big corporate bullies?
Or any really useful and needed law?
Sure, your sentiment is right, but your faith in Congress to do the right thing is very misplaced. I'd rather the scientists make the decisions on what's best for the planet. Because they actually seem to care.