"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
news
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?

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.

Yeah..but now he risks being excommunicated and eternal damnation plus
will suffer endless preaching. Still..a gutsy move.

*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!