|
"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. |
"HarryKrause" wrote in message ... Mr Wizzard wrote: 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" No offense, but Halliburton and most of the rest of the companies involved in "Big Oil" are a big part of our problem in terms of oil prices and our situation in the Middle East. They're no different than Enron was. Whoa! - there is a *BIG* difference, Halliburton isn't breaking any laws. How are companies involved in "Big Oil" part of the problem in terms of oil prices? I'd like to know this. further, what wertern country has the cheapest oil prices? Lets see, England its like $9/gal, Eurpope $5, right? Other places? chart please ? |
"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 ?? |
On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 08:38:56 -0700, Mr Wizzard wrote:
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 ?) You know this, how? Of course their are other American companies that are capable of doing this work. In most cases, Halliburton was doing was hiring other companies to do the work. 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. Shades of Gordon Gecko. Funny, but I thought what made capitalism a healthy system wasn't greed, but competition. And there was no competition in the Halliburton contract. http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=11525 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. You do have a distorted sense of capitalism. You may wish to take a remedial look at free markets. Greed, if you want to call it that, only accounts for one side of the paradigm, the supply side. On the market side, I would say the more important side, the driving force is not greed, far from it. |
Mr Wizzard wrote: 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" So, all is well, as long as it doesn't break any laws??? Kinda like a fillibuster? |
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? |
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? |
*JimH* wrote: 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? I'm not Kevin. |
Don White wrote: Yeah..but now he risks being excommunicated and eternal damnation plus will suffer endless preaching. Still..a gutsy move. Oh, absolutely! JimH and his nose-to-ass buddy Fritz will start childish name calling and petty insults any second now! |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:38 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com