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


So help me understand here So what exactally is "wrong" with things that
favor Haliburton, and having oil as our best interest? To this day, I
honestly don't understand this. Be it awarding Haliburton with contracts
in Iraq, or this, (or any other thing that favors Haliburton, and/or the
oil industry). Isn't this actually a "good" thing ? I mean, as I
understand it, Haliburton is a very experienced at oil
exploration/consulting etc., and they are State side, and hire mostly
Americans, right ? I mean, they are the best equipped to do the job, so
what's the problem? Further, what is wrong with haveing oil as one of
this country's best interests? Who does it benefit to "not" have oil as
our best interest? (and how)? What, you want $9/gallon gas like in Europe
and such? Having oil in our best interest (be it wartime, *or* peacetime)
is a very noble thing. And it should go to the most experienced, best
equipped company, and even better if the company is an American company
comprised or American workers operating on American lands. (not the French
- they got caught in an illegal $60B oil deal with one Mr Saddam Hussien).

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

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

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

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

"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.

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
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.

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?

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 !

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"

"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" 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 ??

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.