Will the Name Solyndra be Remembered? - Page 6 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

MS Fowler · #76 09-18-2011, 11:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

If you can discern honest intentions from dishonest, you are a marvelous soul to be reckoned with.

The Judge asked the embezzler standing before his bench, "How could you steal from people who trusted you?"
The embezzler replied--" Your Honor, you can't steal from them unless they do trust you"

Honus · #77 09-18-2011, 11:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

If you can discern honest intentions from dishonest, you are a marvelous soul to be reckoned with.

Sometimes it's obvious, IMO. Honesty in this context goes hand-in-hand with fairness and good faith. Congressional oversight would be much better if the majority party would deal in good faith with the minority, the witnesses, and the subjects of their investigations. I don't see much good faith in the way Rep. Gardner dealt with that witness. Or maybe he's just not very smart. At any rate, his performance in the linked video is an embarrassment.

Botnst · #78 09-19-2011, 12:03 AM

It would be nice if there was a tooth fairy.

The reality is that people in power are corruptible. The framers, knowing the fallibility of man, devised a system set against itself, in which each center of power would be moderated by the others, despite the inherent corruptibility of man.

I am fine with anybody elected to congress running an inquiry into the actions of the exec. If the legislator is a total bozo then the administration should be able to handle him just fine.

I prefer controversy and gridlock. I find it a comfortable shelter from the storm.

Honus · #79 09-19-2011, 12:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

...If the legislator is a total bozo then the administration should be able to handle him just fine...

When the bozo-ness is obvious, as it was in Rep. Gardner's case on Wednesday, then the administration should come out OK. Sometimes, though, the idiocy is only obvious to those with time and interest to follow the particular subject matter at issue in the investigation. In that case, I think the bozos can do real harm, especially with the way the media bends over backwards to give all sides of an argument equal dignity, no matter how idiotic a given argument may be. Rarely do legislators' shorts get pulled down around their ankles as clearly as Gardner's were in that video.

Billybob · #80 09-19-2011, 12:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

.....I prefer controversy and gridlock. I find it a comfortable shelter from the storm.

No man's life, liberty or property are safe while the legislature is in session. Judge Gideon J. Tucker

Billybob · #81 09-19-2011, 12:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Honus

When the bozo-ness is obvious, as it was in Rep. Gardner's case on Wednesday, then the administration should come out OK. Sometimes, though, the idiocy is only obvious to those with time and interest to follow the particular subject matter at issue in the investigation. In that case, I think the bozos can do real harm, especially with the way the media bends over backwards to give all sides of an argument equal dignity, no matter how idiotic a given argument may be. Rarely do legislators' shorts get pulled down around their ankles as clearly as Gardner's were in that video.

The investigation is about, $528 million dollars that has been essentially pissed away on a venture that never showed a reasonable possibility of success, by this administrations fervor to create a compelling narrative for a center piece of its agenda, and did so despite numerous contrary common sense objections up and down the governmental ladder; and you're wringing your hands over the stylistic foibles of an insignificant bit player in this drama.

Do you really think that Gardner’s performance will somehow impact the developing “optics” of this unfolding fiasco?

t walgamuth · #82 09-19-2011, 05:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billybob

No man's life, liberty or property are safe while the legislature is in session. Judge Gideon J. Tucker

That sounds like something Harry Trueman might have said too.

t walgamuth · #83 09-19-2011, 05:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billybob

The investigation is about, $528 million dollars that has been essentially pissed away on a venture that never showed a reasonable possibility of success, by this administrations fervor to create a compelling narrative for a center piece of its agenda, and did so despite numerous contrary common sense objections up and down the governmental ladder; and you're wringing your hands over the stylistic foibles of an insignificant bit player in this drama.

Do you really think that Gardner’s performance will somehow impact the developing “optics” of this unfolding fiasco?

As a comparison, I wonder how many dollars are passed out (or pissed away if you prefer) to the Petroleum industry, a well proven money maker, or to the ethanol industry (a well proven money loser)?

cmac2012 · #84 09-19-2011, 05:26 AM

It looks incompetent at best, I'll readily admit. At one time Solyndra's tech looked promising, not long ago when the silicon for PVCells was a lot more expensive. Solyndra didn't use silicon or perhaps nearly as much, I'm no expert on it's technology. Nonetheless, I can see how it might have appeared promising.

Botnst · #85 09-19-2011, 07:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Honus

When the bozo-ness is obvious, as it was in Rep. Gardner's case on Wednesday, then the administration should come out OK. Sometimes, though, the idiocy is only obvious to those with time and interest to follow the particular subject matter at issue in the investigation. In that case, I think the bozos can do real harm, especially with the way the media bends over backwards to give all sides of an argument equal dignity, no matter how idiotic a given argument may be. Rarely do legislators' shorts get pulled down around their ankles as clearly as Gardner's were in that video.

Ok. I have always felt that way about that pinheaded Californian. Yet no matter how many ugly faces I made at the TV, he kept going with his investigations ad nauseum. And even though he was unable to produce anything more consequential than hints of malfeasance, he did serve to keep the administration on its toes and the bureaucrats, on notice. That's a good thing, regardless of the motives.

Whatever their motivations, they still serve the purpose of the Republic.

Botnst · #86 09-19-2011, 07:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

As a comparison, I wonder how many dollars are passed out (or pissed away if you prefer) to the Petroleum industry, a well proven money maker, or to the ethanol industry (a well proven money loser)?

Death by innuendo.

Air&Road · #87 09-19-2011, 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

Haliburton subcontracted nearly everything that they provided. I have never bought that they were the only company capable of providing the services.

Though you say he left on bad terms (I never heard this before) he did not sell his stock in it and made millions as VP of the us on his holdings each year. (Am I not correct?)

To me the way we waged war was an outrage in Iraq and Afganistan. It was a thinly disguised way to channel huge contracts to private contracors like Haliburton. Privatizing things like trucking, and the food services inside the two countries. The big US company gets a huge cost plus contract, hires a local company to do the work.

The local company in turn to get the trucks safely through areas not completely secure yet (we have this "lean" military presence now) have to pay "security" payments to the local war lords. The money goes right into the insurgent purse to finance the anti american fighters. We are (were) finincing the people killing our military personell.

In this was the administration was allowed to speak of our presence in Iraq for example as (what was the number?) 140,000 troops, when if you counted all the privatized contracting presence the number was probably really 500,000 people there doing what in previouis wars (like ww2) would have all been done by men and women in the us uniform.

Of course these contractors funneled huge contributions to their political allies.

When I was on the local school board we could not even take school items like desks and file cabinets to the dump when we bought new ones, we had to offer them for bid. No such rules or anything close hampered the war efforts in the middle east.

Had you been hearing Texas local news back in those days, you would not have missed the goings on over Halliburtons purchase of Dresser. It turned out to be a bad acquisition and who else to blame besides the CEO.

Cheney was an attack dog. Who in any opposition party likes an attack dog? The perceived attachment of Halliburton and Cheney while he was VP was a natural for the mainstream media. If there was favoring of Halliburton that is indeed a bad deal, but Cheney, if anything was seen in bad light by Halliburton during that time period.

Maybe you should reevaluate your news sources.

Air&Road · #88 09-19-2011, 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by panZZer

Too bad george doesn't have a brother--then we would have the Kaiser Brothers!

Is this Kaiser a descendant of the Kaiser that built the Liberty Ships in WWII? THAT Kaiser illegally pidgeon holed steel that he was allowed to buy during the war to make ships. He then started making cars after the war before anyone else could, because he had the ill gotten steel. If the guy wasn't a crook, he bordered on it.

Air&Road · #89 09-19-2011, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

Alleged corruption.
Bush administration and the WH financial office under Obama warned of dangers with this loan. Obama pushed it. The principle involved was a "bundler" of campaign funds. He set up the deal so he gets paid even if Solyndra goes bankrupt. He also has priority WH access.
Connect the dots--maybe it is corruption; maybe not, but it needs investigation.

Very GOOD! I haven't read every post in this thread, but I'm glad that someone finally brought out this point. I expect that there are many here from which their news source has not pointed this out.

Air&Road · #90 09-19-2011, 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Why is the gov involved in insuring private corporations? The gov can't even balance a budget for god's sake.

VERY good point! If you want anything messed up, just let our incompetent government control it. This is NOT a partisan statement. NONE OF THEM on EITHER side of the aisle are capable of running a program efficiently, much less ethically.