| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 ! |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
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" |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
"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. |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
"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 ?? |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mr Wizzard wrote: "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 ?? Inserting things into bills after debate and discussion has been closed does not benefit us in two very important ways: 1) It makes a mockery of representative government and the rule of Constitutional principles. 2) It furhter obfuscates a democratic process that should be transparent. If the inserted items are going to "benefit us", they should be included in the bill when it is considered, debated, and prior to finalization by the bi-cameral conference committee. We elect our representatives to make decisions that will "benefit us", and the standard of "benefit" should be whatever our elected representatives feel is beneficial, (not whatever some government stooge thinks would be desirable and then slips into the bill to trick congress into voting on it). |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
P. Fritz wrote: "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. P. Fritz, being whomever he is, apparently believes that his political party should strive to misbehave at least as badly as all political parties have in the past. Would this be an indicator of being so devoid of a moral compass that one is reduced to seeking out the examples of others, rather than an examination of conscience, to determine right vs. wrong? Possibly not, but it could be close. |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
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? |
| 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 | |||
Hybrid Mode
