|
|
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 |
On 29 Jul 2005 06:38:40 -0700, wrote:
*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. Well, let's hope I didn't earn you as a friend! -- John H. On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD |
|
"John H." wrote in message ... 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 I do not always agree with the Pres or what the Republicans in Congress do. That was not my original point though. I was saying that you just don't take a position lately either way. That's all. |
On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 10:21:46 -0400, "*JimH*" wrote:
"John H." wrote in message .. . 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 I do not always agree with the Pres or what the Republicans in Congress do. That was not my original point though. I was saying that you just don't take a position lately either way. That's all. I went away for four days. I returned to find 998 new posts in rec.boats. Of those, maybe 50 were on topic. Of the other 948, about 90% were simply name-calling. Not a lot there to take a position on. From what I've heard, the energy bill is mostly pork and white-wash. I've driven through France, and I've seen the nuclear reactors every 25 (seemingly) miles. I've not heard of a lot of reactor incidents in France, yet we seem afraid of nuclear energy. I'm astounded that we are still talking the advantages of 'clean coal' technology. Harry Byrd must have had a big hand in the drafting of the bill. -- John H. On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD |
"thunder" wrote in message ... 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. So why is this an issue? Are there really other State side companies that are equally as good as Haliburton? In Iraq, and as I inderstand it, there *were* no other other state side companies capable of doing the work that needed to be done in Iraq. And we *damn* sure wern't gonna hire some European, or French company, right? (I mean, was that even a rational idea anyways ?) Oh, and the French weren't the only ones caught with their finger in the pie. http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1012-33.htm Yeah, that whole UN scandle with the Kofi/CoJo Annun thing, yeah, sheese/ Oh, and those American workers, perhaps they aren't so American: http://www.iconoclast-texas.com/News...0/23news06.htm This article was reading pretty good up to the last paragrah which exposes it for what the article really is - bunk. There is nothing wrong with "greed" - it *is* the sole element of capitalism, and the sooner all Americans realie this, the sooner we will all get this anti-American/anti-Capitalism under control. We are a "law-based", Capitalism based society which is a good thing. Be it sleezy salesman, or Wall Marts, etc., companies, and corporate America forms companies, and corporations to "make money". We are not a "feel good" society - profits first (which benifits *everyone* in the form of a robust economy, stocks, investment funds, tax revenue etc), and the feel-good/warm-n-fuzzy thing second, guided by "law" which prevents "greed" from hurting anyone. This is *not* socialism. Capitalism is not for the faint of heart. |
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" |
wrote in message oups.com... wrote: 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. That's been the norm lately. Publish a bill about the size of the Manhattan Yellow Pages and deliver it to lawmakers about 4:30 on a Saturday afternoon. Call for a vote at 8:30 the following Monday morning. "Don't worry, we'll condense those 600,000 words down into a little sound byte so you will know what you're voting on." Right. I'm sure the D's were just as blatantly abusive when they had the majority, but that doesn't excuse this practice from either side. This new wrinkle of tinkering with the bill after the conference committee has met and gone back to the chambers with a "do pass" recommendation is certainly immoral, if not downright illegal. It's on the same level as changing the terms of a contract after some of the parties in the contract have already signed it My question remains unanswered month after month, year after year, scandalous fraud after scandalous fraud: If some particular school of political thought is so obviously right for America and so incredibly fair in practice- why do the operatives of any particular school of political thought have to rely on lying, cheating, and trickery to produce results or attempt to remain in power? And the asnwer to your nagging question is very simple. Its because "people are too stupid to [to vote]". Those were the words of what, Washington, Jefferson? when they came up with the Electroal college? Not all people understand our system of capitalism, much let alone realize that it IS good for our country, and what it is based on. Granted, we are not to break any LAWS, but that is WHY we have the liberal party - the nay-sayer group that is susposed to challange, nag and whine about everything, and keep everyone on the straight-n-narrow (that was their original charter), so if they missed it, and the inserters didn't break any laws on the books, **** it. deal with it. Pick up the shattered pieces of your life and move on. In the mean time, I'm "good" with the fact that a well experienced, high profit, American based company is getting favortism for a chance. First off, "profits" for an American based company is a good thjing and benifits everyone (economy), secondly, it helps offset the huge international trade imbalance. Again: if no laws are broken, Go Arerica ! |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:39 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com