Mr Wizzard wrote:
"P. Fritz" wrote in message
...

"Mr Wizzard" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...

Mr Wizzard wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
According to JimH's analogy, this is on topic, because boats use
energy.

More proof that Republicans are pigs at the trough.

Majority Leader Tom DeLay may have faded from the front pages, but
he's
still up to his dirty tricks. Yesterday, Rep. Henry Waxman
revealed
that DeLay slipped "a $1.5 billion giveaway to the oil industry,
Halliburton, and Sugar Land, Texas" into the energy bill.

So help me understand here So what exactally is "wrong" with
things that favor Haliburton, and having oil as our best interest?
To this day, I honestly don't understand this. Be it awarding
Haliburton with contracts in Iraq, or this, (or any other thing
that favors Haliburton, and/or the oil industry). Isn't this
actually
a "good" thing ? I mean, as I understand it, Haliburton is a very
experienced at oil exploration/consulting etc., and they are State
side, and hire mostly Americans, right ? I mean, they are the
best equipped to do the job, so what's the problem? Further,
what is wrong with haveing oil as one of this country's best
interests?
Who does it benefit to "not" have oil as our best interest? (and
how)?
What, you want $9/gallon gas like in Europe and such? Having oil
in our best interest (be it wartime, *or* peacetime) is a very noble
thing. And it should go to the most experienced, best equipped
company, and even better if the company is an American company
comprised or American workers operating on American lands.
(not the French - they got caught in an illegal $60B oil deal
with one Mr Saddam Hussien).

I take it that you didn't get this part: The provision was
"mysteriously inserted" into the text of the
energy bill "after the conference was closed, so members of the
conference committee had no opportunity to consider or reject this
measure."

It was inserted AFTER THE CONFERENCE WAS CLOSED, so no one, republican
or democrat, was able to consider or reject it.

Well, if this "mysterious insertion" broke laws,
then yeah, there should be outrage. However,
as presented, its clearly not that it was inserted
that is being focused on, its that fact that it was
the `OMFG, it was *Halliburton*!` mentality.
I'll bet if if was some Clintonesque social program
that was mysterious inserted, it wouldn't be an
issue for you. Ok, ok, maybe that was a cheap
shot, but again, look at how this article is/was
being presented: "Republican Pigs are at it again",
and Halliburton. If the origanl author was truely
even keeled, and concerned about the PROCESS,
then it would have read more "neutral" - something
like: "Mysterious provision shows up in energy bill"


Kevin, being the "King of the NG idiots" that he is, pretends like this
has never happened before, when in fact, it is a common practice in D.C.
that has gone on for decades by both parties when they have been in power.
Is it a good or wise practice......hell no, but kevin whining about
'republican pigs' is just his child like mentality run amok.

Yup, I totally agree. And again, to humor him
(or whomever the author was), and to lower
ones self to his level and argue his
the "emotional-riden" merits, he still loses:
how does the 'mysterious insertion' NOT
benefit us ??



Inserting things into bills after debate and discussion has been closed
does not benefit us in two very important ways:

1) It makes a mockery of representative government and the rule of
Constitutional principles.

2) It furhter obfuscates a democratic process that should be
transparent.
If the inserted items are going to "benefit us", they should be
included in the bill when it is considered, debated, and prior to
finalization by the bi-cameral conference committee. We elect our
representatives to make decisions that will "benefit us", and the
standard of "benefit" should be whatever our elected representatives
feel is beneficial, (not whatever some government stooge thinks would
be desirable and then slips into the bill to trick congress into voting
on it).