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. :-(

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 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.

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).

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 19:27:12 -0700, Mr Wizzard wrote:


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 don't have any problem with Halliburton, per se, but I do have a problem
with awarding no-bid contracts, especially when the awarder and the
awardee have such close ties. Oh, and the French weren't the only ones
caught with their finger in the pie.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1012-33.htm

Oh, and those American workers, perhaps they aren't so American:

http://www.iconoclast-texas.com/News...0/23news06.htm

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.

P. Fritz wrote:
"Dan J.S." wrote in message
...




Part of it was for deep oil drilling in the Gulf and other provisions...
its
actually pretty good deal for everyone if you actually read the entire
bill.

Reading comprehension has never been one of kevin's strong points.

This is TOO damned funny, I take it that you guys don't understand that
the provision was slipped in AFTER the conference was closed, huh?

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.

*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.

wrote in message
ups.com...

P. Fritz wrote:
"Dan J.S." wrote in message
...




Part of it was for deep oil drilling in the Gulf and other
provisions...
its
actually pretty good deal for everyone if you actually read the entire
bill.

Reading comprehension has never been one of kevin's strong points.

This is TOO damned funny, I take it that you guys don't understand that
the provision was slipped in AFTER the conference was closed, huh?


This is why it's a good idea to edit these posts severely, eliminating as
much clutter as possible. Otherwise, the kiddies don't get the point.