| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
"John H." wrote in message ... On 28 Jul 2005 16:55:10 -0700, " wrote: John H. wrote: On 28 Jul 2005 10:37:03 -0700, wrote: 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. But it gets worse. 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." DeLay has launched an assault on the democratic process. Write your representatives and demand this provision be removed from the energy bill. THE ANATOMY OF A SCAM: The $1.5 billion is designated for "oil and natural gas drilling research." Ordinarily, any company could apply for these funds directly from the government. But DeLay does things a little differently. In this case, the bulk of the money must be handed over to "a corporation that is constructed as a consortium." As it so happens, "the leading contender for this contract appears to be the Research Partnership to Secure Energy for America (RPSEA) consortium, housed in the Texas Energy Center in Sugar Land, Texas," Tom DeLay's home district. RPSEA "has been advocating such a research program and is in a better position than any other group." (DeLay testified in support of the program before a House subcommittee last year.) If RPSEA wins the contract they can keep "up to 10% of the funds - in this case, over $100 million - in administrative expenses." DISPENSING WITH DEMOCRACY: The $1.5 billion giveaway was added to the bill after "Democratic negotiators went home Tuesday at 4 a.m. believing a deal had been finalized and the provision wasn't in the bill." The program was not included in the draft version of the bill and a DeLay spokesman said "he could not explain how the item was added to the final version of legislation prepared by the Senate and House negotiators." A spokesman for Rep. Joe Barton, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, noted that Sen. Jeff Bingaman, (D-NM), and Rep. John Dingell, (D-MI) were also informed. Bingaman's spokesman, Bill Wicker, said "We don't see this as a sweetheart deal for anyone." DELAY - ROBIN HOOD IN REVERSE: The broader question is: why do taxpayers need to provide another huge subsidy oil and gas companies? As Waxman notes "The oil and gas industry is reporting record income and profits. According to one analyst, the net income of the top oil companies will total $230 billion in 2005." Halliburton, which is a member of the consortium, would be eligible to "receive awards from the over $1 billion fund administered by the consortium." DELAY - ATTACKING THE MESSENGER: Instead taking responsibility for his action, DeLay attacked the messenger. DeLay spokesman Kevin Madden said, ''Henry Waxman knows zero about Texas, zero about energy security, and apparently even less about how a bill becomes law." The RPSEA consortium, for their part, doesn't want to know. Melanie Kenderdine, who represents Gas Technology Institute, a company in the consortium, said, "how the sausage is made is not important to me." Apparently you didn't see all the Democrats hailing the energy bill in the House today. Seventy-five Democrats voted for it. -- John H. On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD Shhhhhh! Quiet, John H. Do you have any idea how many billions of dollars and millions of hours have been invested to this point to convince most Americans that our problems are the result of the "wrong" political party, ("wrong" as in whichever party any particular individual doesn't belong to), rather than wholesale whoredom and corruption throughout the system itself? As long as the D's can be forced to focus attention on the R's, and the R's on the D's, the PACS and CORPS who control them both control us all. :-( You will have noted, of course, that I made no comments with regard to my opinion of the 'energy' bill! -- John H. On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD John, you seem to be riding the fence lately without taking a real position so you can later say..."I made no comments with regard to........." Just an observation. I do not want to start WWIII with you. ;-) More power to you if that is what you want to do. Just an opinion. |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
*JimH* wrote: "John H." wrote in message ... On 28 Jul 2005 16:55:10 -0700, " wrote: John H. wrote: On 28 Jul 2005 10:37:03 -0700, wrote: 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. But it gets worse. 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." DeLay has launched an assault on the democratic process. Write your representatives and demand this provision be removed from the energy bill. THE ANATOMY OF A SCAM: The $1.5 billion is designated for "oil and natural gas drilling research." Ordinarily, any company could apply for these funds directly from the government. But DeLay does things a little differently. In this case, the bulk of the money must be handed over to "a corporation that is constructed as a consortium." As it so happens, "the leading contender for this contract appears to be the Research Partnership to Secure Energy for America (RPSEA) consortium, housed in the Texas Energy Center in Sugar Land, Texas," Tom DeLay's home district. RPSEA "has been advocating such a research program and is in a better position than any other group." (DeLay testified in support of the program before a House subcommittee last year.) If RPSEA wins the contract they can keep "up to 10% of the funds - in this case, over $100 million - in administrative expenses." DISPENSING WITH DEMOCRACY: The $1.5 billion giveaway was added to the bill after "Democratic negotiators went home Tuesday at 4 a.m. believing a deal had been finalized and the provision wasn't in the bill." The program was not included in the draft version of the bill and a DeLay spokesman said "he could not explain how the item was added to the final version of legislation prepared by the Senate and House negotiators." A spokesman for Rep. Joe Barton, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, noted that Sen. Jeff Bingaman, (D-NM), and Rep. John Dingell, (D-MI) were also informed. Bingaman's spokesman, Bill Wicker, said "We don't see this as a sweetheart deal for anyone." DELAY - ROBIN HOOD IN REVERSE: The broader question is: why do taxpayers need to provide another huge subsidy oil and gas companies? As Waxman notes "The oil and gas industry is reporting record income and profits. According to one analyst, the net income of the top oil companies will total $230 billion in 2005." Halliburton, which is a member of the consortium, would be eligible to "receive awards from the over $1 billion fund administered by the consortium." DELAY - ATTACKING THE MESSENGER: Instead taking responsibility for his action, DeLay attacked the messenger. DeLay spokesman Kevin Madden said, ''Henry Waxman knows zero about Texas, zero about energy security, and apparently even less about how a bill becomes law." The RPSEA consortium, for their part, doesn't want to know. Melanie Kenderdine, who represents Gas Technology Institute, a company in the consortium, said, "how the sausage is made is not important to me." Apparently you didn't see all the Democrats hailing the energy bill in the House today. Seventy-five Democrats voted for it. -- John H. On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD Shhhhhh! Quiet, John H. Do you have any idea how many billions of dollars and millions of hours have been invested to this point to convince most Americans that our problems are the result of the "wrong" political party, ("wrong" as in whichever party any particular individual doesn't belong to), rather than wholesale whoredom and corruption throughout the system itself? As long as the D's can be forced to focus attention on the R's, and the R's on the D's, the PACS and CORPS who control them both control us all. :-( You will have noted, of course, that I made no comments with regard to my opinion of the 'energy' bill! -- John H. On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD John, you seem to be riding the fence lately without taking a real position so you can later say..."I made no comments with regard to........." Just an observation. I do not want to start WWIII with you. ;-) More power to you if that is what you want to do. Just an opinion. John, you've made an enemy instantly because you're not goose-stepping lemming-like to the party!!!! Good for you for having a brain and using it. |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 21:09:38 -0400, "*JimH*" wrote:
"John H." wrote in message .. . On 28 Jul 2005 16:55:10 -0700, " wrote: John H. wrote: On 28 Jul 2005 10:37:03 -0700, wrote: 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. But it gets worse. 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." DeLay has launched an assault on the democratic process. Write your representatives and demand this provision be removed from the energy bill. THE ANATOMY OF A SCAM: The $1.5 billion is designated for "oil and natural gas drilling research." Ordinarily, any company could apply for these funds directly from the government. But DeLay does things a little differently. In this case, the bulk of the money must be handed over to "a corporation that is constructed as a consortium." As it so happens, "the leading contender for this contract appears to be the Research Partnership to Secure Energy for America (RPSEA) consortium, housed in the Texas Energy Center in Sugar Land, Texas," Tom DeLay's home district. RPSEA "has been advocating such a research program and is in a better position than any other group." (DeLay testified in support of the program before a House subcommittee last year.) If RPSEA wins the contract they can keep "up to 10% of the funds - in this case, over $100 million - in administrative expenses." DISPENSING WITH DEMOCRACY: The $1.5 billion giveaway was added to the bill after "Democratic negotiators went home Tuesday at 4 a.m. believing a deal had been finalized and the provision wasn't in the bill." The program was not included in the draft version of the bill and a DeLay spokesman said "he could not explain how the item was added to the final version of legislation prepared by the Senate and House negotiators." A spokesman for Rep. Joe Barton, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, noted that Sen. Jeff Bingaman, (D-NM), and Rep. John Dingell, (D-MI) were also informed. Bingaman's spokesman, Bill Wicker, said "We don't see this as a sweetheart deal for anyone." DELAY - ROBIN HOOD IN REVERSE: The broader question is: why do taxpayers need to provide another huge subsidy oil and gas companies? As Waxman notes "The oil and gas industry is reporting record income and profits. According to one analyst, the net income of the top oil companies will total $230 billion in 2005." Halliburton, which is a member of the consortium, would be eligible to "receive awards from the over $1 billion fund administered by the consortium." DELAY - ATTACKING THE MESSENGER: Instead taking responsibility for his action, DeLay attacked the messenger. DeLay spokesman Kevin Madden said, ''Henry Waxman knows zero about Texas, zero about energy security, and apparently even less about how a bill becomes law." The RPSEA consortium, for their part, doesn't want to know. Melanie Kenderdine, who represents Gas Technology Institute, a company in the consortium, said, "how the sausage is made is not important to me." Apparently you didn't see all the Democrats hailing the energy bill in the House today. Seventy-five Democrats voted for it. -- John H. On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD Shhhhhh! Quiet, John H. Do you have any idea how many billions of dollars and millions of hours have been invested to this point to convince most Americans that our problems are the result of the "wrong" political party, ("wrong" as in whichever party any particular individual doesn't belong to), rather than wholesale whoredom and corruption throughout the system itself? As long as the D's can be forced to focus attention on the R's, and the R's on the D's, the PACS and CORPS who control them both control us all. :-( You will have noted, of course, that I made no comments with regard to my opinion of the 'energy' bill! -- John H. On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD John, you seem to be riding the fence lately without taking a real position so you can later say..."I made no comments with regard to........." Just an observation. I do not want to start WWIII with you. ;-) More power to you if that is what you want to do. Just an opinion. There's nothing 'lately' about it. You'll find that I very often just disagree with the presentation of an argument, not the policy being argued. Some folks just utter stupidities and inaccuracies to support their 'arguments'. Last night I watched Kerry's remarks regarding the energy bill. Many of his comments, if not most, made very good sense. -- John H. On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
John H. wrote: Apparently you didn't see all the Democrats hailing the energy bill in the House today. Seventy-five Democrats voted for it. -- Apparently you didn't see that it was slipped in AFTER THE CONFERENCE WAS CLOSED, meaning no one, democrat or republican was able to consider or reject it. |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
John H. wrote: On 29 Jul 2005 06:37:17 -0700, wrote: John H. wrote: Apparently you didn't see all the Democrats hailing the energy bill in the House today. Seventy-five Democrats voted for it. -- Apparently you didn't see that it was slipped in AFTER THE CONFERENCE WAS CLOSED, meaning no one, democrat or republican was able to consider or reject it. Was it slipped in AFTER the vote on the House floor? No? Well then all those Democrats had a chance to vote "NO". The thing is, the bill was read and debated AT THE CONFERENCE. The vote is after they all allegedly know what's in the bill. But, alas, the republicans in office now, being the slight-of-hand dirty pigs that they are, on purpose, had this entire clause inserted afterwards. Do you really think that the whole clause, which they worked on for months, was just accidently left out, then someone thought, oh, hell, we forgot this part... OR, do you think it was that they knew the bill would have a much greater failure rate if they did everything above board? |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message ups.com... John H. wrote: On 29 Jul 2005 06:37:17 -0700, wrote: John H. wrote: Apparently you didn't see all the Democrats hailing the energy bill in the House today. Seventy-five Democrats voted for it. -- Apparently you didn't see that it was slipped in AFTER THE CONFERENCE WAS CLOSED, meaning no one, democrat or republican was able to consider or reject it. Was it slipped in AFTER the vote on the House floor? No? Well then all those Democrats had a chance to vote "NO". The thing is, the bill was read and debated AT THE CONFERENCE. The vote is after they all allegedly know what's in the bill. But, alas, the republicans in office now, being the slight-of-hand dirty pigs that they are, on purpose, had this entire clause inserted afterwards. Do you really think that the whole clause, which they worked on for months, was just accidently left out, then someone thought, oh, hell, we forgot this part... OR, do you think it was that they knew the bill would have a much greater failure rate if they did everything above board? Are republicans the only dirty pigs or are there dirty pig democrats also Kevin? Are all republicans dirty pigs in your mind Kevin? |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 29 Jul 2005 09:55:36 -0700, wrote:
John H. wrote: On 29 Jul 2005 06:37:17 -0700, wrote: John H. wrote: Apparently you didn't see all the Democrats hailing the energy bill in the House today. Seventy-five Democrats voted for it. -- Apparently you didn't see that it was slipped in AFTER THE CONFERENCE WAS CLOSED, meaning no one, democrat or republican was able to consider or reject it. Was it slipped in AFTER the vote on the House floor? No? Well then all those Democrats had a chance to vote "NO". The thing is, the bill was read and debated AT THE CONFERENCE. The vote is after they all allegedly know what's in the bill. But, alas, the republicans in office now, being the slight-of-hand dirty pigs that they are, on purpose, had this entire clause inserted afterwards. Do you really think that the whole clause, which they worked on for months, was just accidently left out, then someone thought, oh, hell, we forgot this part... OR, do you think it was that they knew the bill would have a much greater failure rate if they did everything above board? The bill was also debated on the House floor (live on C-Span!). Are you saying the sneaky Republicans inserted this AFTER the debate and vote in the House? Or, are you saying that none of the Democrats (or their innumerable staffers) who voted FOR the bill read it? And, not one of the Democrats who voted against the bill read it and told their buddies? John Kerry, as much as I dislike the guy, made several mentions of things in the bill that had been changed in conference. He (or one of his staffers) must have read the bill. -- John H. On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
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). |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| OT Republican Pigs at Trough | General | |||
| Delay the king of crooks | General | |||
| OT More from the Republican Pigs. | General | |||
| Republican myths | General | |||