ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 6th August 2005, 08:55 AM   #1
Mark
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 5,505
Republican "Energy" Bill

I know the Republican party loyalists won't care, but this is obscene:

Quote:
Sometime after 4:00 AM on the eve of the bill’s passage, and after Democrat negotiators had headed home, a $500 million handout was slipped into the bill. The money will purportedly go to “ultradeep drilling” research in the Gulf of Mexico to be administered by a consortium based in — who’d a thunk it? — Tom Delay’s hometown of Sugarland, Texas. One of the consortium’s members is — why sure, who else — Halliburton.
http://www.thebushpresidency.org/index.htm
Mark is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2005, 09:14 AM   #2
shanek
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 15,990
Yet another reason we need the Read The Bills Act sponsored and passed.
shanek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2005, 09:21 AM   #3
Rob Lister
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 8,504
Re: Republican "Energy" Bill

Quote:
Originally posted by Mark
I know the Republican party loyalists won't care, but this is obscene:


http://www.thebushpresidency.org/index.htm
I agree with you, more or less, on this issue. If you had posted to say that the entire bill is a bipartisan pork-fest I'd have agreed with you wholeheartedly. After reading the final product I can find nothing in the bill that in any way relates to an energy bill. It's just pork distributed in fifty different directions. It does absolutely NOTHING to set a comprehensive and workable energy policy. It is not a shame, it is a disgrace.

What a waste of a majority.
Rob Lister is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2005, 09:50 AM   #4
Mark
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 5,505
Re: Re: Republican "Energy" Bill

Quote:
Originally posted by Rob Lister
I agree with you, more or less, on this issue. If you had posted to say that the entire bill is a bipartisan pork-fest I'd have agreed with you wholeheartedly. After reading the final product I can find nothing in the bill that in any way relates to an energy bill. It's just pork distributed in fifty different directions. It does absolutely NOTHING to set a comprehensive and workable energy policy. It is not a shame, it is a disgrace.

What a waste of a majority.
While there are few decent provisions, by and large it is a pork-fest, and is a disgrace to both parties.
Mark is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2005, 11:17 AM   #5
Rob Lister
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 8,504
Re: Re: Re: Republican "Energy" Bill

Quote:
Originally posted by Mark
While there are few decent provisions, by and large it is a pork-fest, and is a disgrace to both parties.
I'd be interested in hearing what you think the decent provisions are. I must have missed them.
Rob Lister is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2005, 11:42 AM   #6
Mark
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 5,505
Re: Re: Re: Re: Republican "Energy" Bill

Quote:
Originally posted by Rob Lister
I'd be interested in hearing what you think the decent provisions are. I must have missed them.
I am all for tax breaks for alternative energy sources. In fact, when I am elected Jesus, I will go even further and start a Manhattan Project style project to find an effective alternative to petroleum based products. Of course, I would probably be assasinated for it...
Mark is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2005, 12:18 PM   #7
corplinx
JREF Kid
 
corplinx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 8,952
It seems Bush pushed Cafta through and had to sellout on the Energy and Highway bills to do it.

That's the real shame. To get real reforms made he had to essentially payoff all these people. I wish he'd veto the crap and say "F U, no reforms for pork quid pro quo ever again". Thats hoping too much however............
__________________
Nothing Reportable Here
corplinx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2005, 12:31 PM   #8
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 60,134
Re: Republican "Energy" Bill

Quote:
Originally posted by Mark
I know the Republican party loyalists won't care, but this is obscene:http://www.thebushpresidency.org/index.htm
I'm not sure if I'm seen as a Republican loyalist but I think it is obscene.
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2005, 12:47 PM   #9
Mark
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 5,505
Re: Re: Republican "Energy" Bill

Quote:
Originally posted by RandFan
I'm not sure if I'm seen as a Republican loyalist but I think it is obscene.
Between you and Rob, I definitely stand corrected...and very encouraged.
Mark is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2005, 12:49 PM   #10
joe1347
Critical Thinker
 
joe1347's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 381
Re: Re: Republican "Energy" Bill

Quote:
Originally posted by RandFan
I'm not sure if I'm seen as a Republican loyalist but I think it is obscene.
I'd don't think I know what a Republican Party Loyalist is anymore. I thought that I was one - but after this bunch took charge. I sometimes feel that I'm now left of Hillary.

As for the energy bill. Wasn't it supposed to set us on the road to energy independence? If so, are tax breaks to oil companies the best way to make that happen?

As for other "political" approaches to preventing an energy crisis. Invading Iraq to secure their oil reserves didn't work too well (so far). Should we knock over Venezuela for their potential trillion+ barrels of oil? Should be easier going than Iraq. I'm actually not kidding if invasion/occupation/extraction instead of developing alternative energy resources is our ciurrent energy policy.
joe1347 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2005, 12:52 PM   #11
Manny
Illuminator
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 3,290
On balance I think the bill was a poor one. But I think this provision is actually one of the least objectionable in it. If the US wants increased domestic oil reserves and the market can't encourage companies to explore in ultra-deep water in the GoM (itself something of a conundrum which I haven't resolved) why not provide a little seed money to encourage it? If it works the government will make many times the amount they're spending back in royalties from the oil produced in those waters.

Persons won't be surprised to learn that "thebushpresidency.org" is full of non-energy-efficient cow manure in its description of how the provision came to pass. That's how Henry Waxman described how it came to pass but he is actually, clinically an idiot.
Manny is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2005, 12:59 PM   #12
Mark
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 5,505
Quote:
Originally posted by manny


Persons won't be surprised to learn that "thebushpresidency.org" is full of non-energy-efficient cow manure in its description of how the provision came to pass. That's how Henry Waxman described how it came to pass but he is actually, clinically an idiot.
What a completely unsupported, semantically meaningless comment. Other than as an example of your personal bias, of course.
Mark is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2005, 02:06 PM   #13
Manny
Illuminator
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 3,290
In the bill that was passed, the provision is in Subtitle J of Title IX. In the bill that was introduced, waaaaaaaay back in the beginning of the current Congress, it was Chapter 2 of Subtitle F. It was also in last year's failed energy bill. You could look it up yourself on thomas.gov; the links are not static on that site.


Of course, so could have Henry Waxman before he proved his idiocy once again. "thebushpresidency.org" could not have, as it would make them something other than partisan idiots and that's what they are. The mainstream press could have done it but that would have required actual work, something which is anathama to reporters. Instead they printed a denial from a Republican, called the story "balanced" and didn't bother to actually research the facts.

The difference between you and those people is that you are posting on a skeptical forum. Perhaps you shouldn't; perhaps there's a Mary Kate and Ashley board out there somewhere where you could practice for a while.
Manny is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2005, 02:33 PM   #14
BPSCG
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 17,539
The whole energy bill - not just the latest $500 million (really a drop in the bucket in a nearly $300 billion bill) - is a mess, and is nothing more than a way for congress to take my money and give you some of it, while taking your money and giving me some of it, and expecting both of us to give them our babbling thanks. Even the Wall Street Journal hated it. I think the only Republicans who actually liked it work in the US Capitol building.

This is what congress does, unfortunately.

Check this out, from my home town weekly, lauding the wife-beating, influence-peddling disgrace known here as "Congressman Jim Moran". Note in particular the narrow margin by which the appropriations bill passed:

Quote:
Alexandria's efforts to improve the ecology and preserve American history received a $6 million vote of confidence July 28 when the U.S. House of Representatives passed the FY 2006 Interior Appropriations bill, H.R.2361, by 410-10.
"Northern Virginia is home to many national treasurers and I am pleased to include funding to help maintain and beautify these public gems as well as fund environmental projects that will keep our area's natural resources clean and provide opportunities for residents to enjoy outdoor activities," said U.S. Rep. James P. Moran (D-8) who included funding for eight area projects in the legislation.
Funds earmarked for Alexandria projects and activities were:
* $3 million for Alexandria-based Water Environment Research Foundation that has played a role in producing improvements in human and ecological health through new water quality processes and technology. It conducts the only national research to help local agencies and businesses meet their water quality responsibilities.
* $1.5 million to assist Alexandria and Arlington in their joint efforts to restore the Four Mile Run Watershed. Last year the two jurisdictions signed an agreement guaranteeing they would match federal resources dedicated to restoring the watershed both to fish and wildlife as well as to provide new recreational opportunities.
* $1 million for the National Biosolids Partnership which works to solve the challenges of recycling more than 40 tons of sludge generated annually by the Alexandria Sanitation Authority treatment plant.
* $250,000 to improve and extend the George Washington Memorial Parkway recreational trail.
* $75,000 to design and establish Freedmen's Cemetery as an appropriate memorial.
* $75,000 for preservation and restoration projects at Alexandria's Athenaeum which is on the National Register of Historic Places.
* $50,000 for repairs to Gadsby's Tavern.
* $50,000 to replace the roof and restore interior furnishings at Carlyle House.
FYI: Mrs. BPSCG and I were married in Gadsby's Tavern.

Link.

Okay, six million in what can only be described as pork, for my district. There are 434 other district out there, and you can be sure your congressman was hard at work making sure he got his six mill also. Six million times 435 = $2.6 billion. I think it's fair to assume that $2.6 billion of the 2006 Interior Appropriations bill was pork.

Let's move on to the HHS appropriations bill.

And the HUD appropriations bill.

And...

Shanek may be right, but what we really need is a presidential line-item veto. And a president willing to use that power.
BPSCG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2005, 02:57 PM   #15
Mark
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 5,505
Quote:
Originally posted by manny
In the bill that was passed, the provision is in Subtitle J of Title IX. In the bill that was introduced, waaaaaaaay back in the beginning of the current Congress, it was Chapter 2 of Subtitle F. It was also in last year's failed energy bill. You could look it up yourself on thomas.gov; the links are not static on that site.


Of course, so could have Henry Waxman before he proved his idiocy once again. "thebushpresidency.org" could not have, as it would make them something other than partisan idiots and that's what they are. The mainstream press could have done it but that would have required actual work, something which is anathama to reporters. Instead they printed a denial from a Republican, called the story "balanced" and didn't bother to actually research the facts.

The difference between you and those people is that you are posting on a skeptical forum. Perhaps you shouldn't; perhaps there's a Mary Kate and Ashley board out there somewhere where you could practice for a while.
So...you have no problem with Delay and Halliburton getting another slice of corporate welfare. Got it. As long as it is Republicans doing it, you have no objection to anything.

All I need to know about your opinion (other than your reliance on childish insults) is that your are still clinging to the myth of liberal media to explain everything.
Mark is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2005, 03:10 PM   #16
Rob Lister
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 8,504
Quote:
Originally posted by Mark
So...you have no problem with Delay and Halliburton getting another slice of corporate welfare. Got it. As long as it is Republicans doing it, you have no objection to anything.

All I need to know about your opinion (other than your reliance on childish insults) is that your are still clinging to the myth of liberal media to explain everything.
Were the facts, as you presented them, correct or incorrect?

That's all you have to answer.
Rob Lister is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2005, 03:17 PM   #17
Mark
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 5,505
Quote:
Originally posted by Rob Lister
Were the facts, as you presented them, correct or incorrect?

That's all you have to answer.
As far as I can tell, the only question was WHEN did the giveaway occur. I will try to research that, but it pales in importance to the fact that it DID occur.
Mark is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2005, 04:27 PM   #18
Bjorn
Off Topic
 
Bjorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,968
Quote:
Originally posted by BPSCG
FYI: Mrs. BPSCG and I were married in Gadsby's Tavern.
Quote:
* $50,000 for repairs to Gadsby's Tavern.
It must have been a wild party ....
__________________
Little did I know, that all those days that came and went, were my life ....
Bjorn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2005, 05:23 PM   #19
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
 
CapelDodger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Cardiff, South Wales
Posts: 22,730
Quote:
Originally posted by BPSCG
Shanek may be right, but what we really need is a presidential line-item veto.
And no Congress will ever let you have one. Catch 22.
__________________
It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward - Lewis Carroll (1832-1898)

God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so - William of Conches, c1150
CapelDodger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2005, 05:27 PM   #20
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
 
CapelDodger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Cardiff, South Wales
Posts: 22,730
Re: Re: Re: Republican "Energy" Bill

Quote:
Originally posted by joe1347
Invading Iraq to secure their oil reserves didn't work too well (so far). Should we knock over Venezuela for their potential trillion+ barrels of oil? Should be easier going than Iraq. I'm actually not kidding if invasion/occupation/extraction instead of developing alternative energy resources is our ciurrent energy policy.
Entirely rational. The penny will eventually drop in Washington. The Monroe Doctrine has served the US well, but these global aspirations are not shaping up so well.
__________________
It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward - Lewis Carroll (1832-1898)

God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so - William of Conches, c1150
CapelDodger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2005, 05:38 PM   #21
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
 
CapelDodger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Cardiff, South Wales
Posts: 22,730
Quote:
Originally posted by manny
On balance I think the bill was a poor one. But I think this provision is actually one of the least objectionable in it. If the US wants increased domestic oil reserves and the market can't encourage companies to explore in ultra-deep water in the GoM (itself something of a conundrum which I haven't resolved) why not provide a little seed money to encourage it? If it works the government will make many times the amount they're spending back in royalties from the oil produced in those waters.
My first thought, and I am a cynic, was to wonder how that half-bill is going to be spent. How much will go to consultancies to produce option lists and feasibility studies, and how much into actual engineering? If most of it goes on vapour-ware, which I suspect will be the case, who gets the money? Does Halliburton have subsidiaries selling the "expertise" required to produce this kind of analysis?

Time will tell, of course.
__________________
It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward - Lewis Carroll (1832-1898)

God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so - William of Conches, c1150
CapelDodger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2005, 05:39 PM   #22
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
 
CapelDodger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Cardiff, South Wales
Posts: 22,730
Quote:
Originally posted by Bjorn
It must have been a wild party ....
The BPSCG's wedding? Legendary.
__________________
It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward - Lewis Carroll (1832-1898)

God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so - William of Conches, c1150
CapelDodger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2005, 06:20 AM   #23
Manny
Illuminator
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 3,290
Quote:
Originally posted by CapelDodger
My first thought, and I am a cynic, was to wonder how that half-bill is going to be spent. How much will go to consultancies to produce option lists and feasibility studies, and how much into actual engineering? If most of it goes on vapour-ware, which I suspect will be the case, who gets the money? Does Halliburton have subsidiaries selling the "expertise" required to produce this kind of analysis?

Time will tell, of course.
It's a fair question. I don't normally like government giveaways, of course. And there's a better-than-even chance I'll end up not liking this one.

Why might it work? Well, the enlightened self-interest of the consortium members. Halliburton, for example, sells oil-field service equipment. They could make a lot of money selling water tubes and lubricating clay to wells that don't hit the ground for 15,000 feet instead of 10,000 feet, for example.

Here's the thing. There's some tantalizing semi-evidence that there's just an ungodly amount of natural gas hanging around just off the continental shelf in the GoM. But not enough evidence to justify putting up the capital for ultra-deepwater drilling out there. (Though there is enough evidence to incent the private market to try ultra-deep drillholes in slightly more shallow water.)

To the extent there's any "theme" at all in the energy bill, that theme is "let's find out how much oil and gas we're sitting on so that investors and policymakers can make decisions based on that." Example: there's widespread opposition in Florida to drilling off the Florida coast -- Jeb even made the President back off an exploration plan in an earlier energy bill. This bill doesn't provide for any drilling there, but it does provide for an inventory. That'll allow policy makers to fight over correct facts. How much domestic oil and/or gas are we giving up to appease Floridians? Maybe not drilling if there's a million barrels but drilling if there's a billion there is the right answer.

So to get back to the ultra-deepwater program, it might make some sense to find out once and for all if there's much gas out there and if it can be recovered economically. The protection against the money disappearing into the vapor is that the same companies who will be receiving the money are the ones who will profit mightily if there's drillable gas. They'll be early entrants to the market and if they've spent our tax dollars wisely they'll be low-cost producers to boot. As a nice benefit, if things work out the government should get wild-catter style returns on the money in the way of drilling concessions.

It could still disapear into the vapor, of course. Don't think that I don't hold that out there as a strong possibility. Even more persuasively, I'm open to the idea that the gas, if it's there, ought to be left there until oil is $100/bbl (which is about $16 gas) and the private markets are sufficiently incented to go find it on their own. All I'm saying is each of the following: that of the awfulness in this bill the ultra-deepwater drilling program is among the least awful; that Mark's original post was misleading in all material respects; and that Mark knew or should have known that it was misleading because he obtained the material from a site which he knows to be biased and because he chose not to investigate the site's charges further before infecting this forum with his woo. Using the H-word doesn't automagically make something bad.
Manny is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2005, 08:03 AM   #24
Bob Klase
Master Poster
 
Bob Klase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,924
Quote:
Originally posted by CapelDodger

Originally posted by BPSCG
Shanek may be right, but what we really need is a presidential line-item veto.

And no Congress will ever let you have one. Catch 22.
Perhaps not again. But a congress already did let us have one (strangely enough it was a Republician congress)d- until the courts took it away.

http://line-item-veto-act-of-1996.area51.ipupdater.com/

"The Line Item Veto Act of 1996 enacted a line-item veto for the Federal Government of the United States, but its effect was brief due to judicial review. It was used once before United States District Court Judge Thomas Hogan declared it unconstitutional on February 12, 1998. This ruling was subsequently affirmed on June 25, 1998 by a 6-3 decision of the Supreme Court"
Bob Klase is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2005, 09:00 AM   #25
Mark
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 5,505
Quote:
Originally posted by manny
[b]
It could still disapear into the vapor, of course. Don't think that I don't hold that out there as a strong possibility. Even more persuasively, I'm open to the idea that the gas, if it's there, ought to be left there until oil is $100/bbl (which is about $16 gas) and the private markets are sufficiently incented to go find it on their own. All I'm saying is each of the following: that of the awfulness in this bill the ultra-deepwater drilling program is among the least awful; that Mark's original post was misleading in all material respects; and that Mark knew or should have known that it was misleading because he obtained the material from a site which he knows to be biased and because he chose not to investigate the site's charges further before infecting this forum with his woo. Using the H-word doesn't...
And the fact that it is Republicans pulling this stunt doesn't make it good. You have no problem with an oil man running the government for his own (and his friends') personal profit. I do.

So would you, if it were a Democrat. The difference between you and me, is I am not a member of either party and and not willing to grab my ankles for either one of them. You are.
Mark is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2005, 09:14 AM   #26
Rob Lister
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 8,504
Quote:
Originally posted by Mark
And the fact that it is Republicans pulling this stunt doesn't make it good.
Nor does it make it bad.
Rob Lister is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2005, 09:50 AM   #27
Mark
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 5,505
Quote:
Originally posted by Rob Lister
Nor does it make it bad.
True enough...but with Halliburton's $31,000,000 payment to Dick Cheney, certainly we have at the least the appearance of impropriety. And if that payout had not happened, would Halliburton be getting the free ride they are? I doubt it.

Halliburton Secretly Doing Business with Key Member of Iran's Nuclear Team

Ex-Employees Say Halliburton 'Deceived' the Government

Halliburton announces 284 percent increase in war profits

"Lawmakers, Including Republicans, Criticize Pentagon on Disputed Billing by Halliburton,"

Army gives $5 bln of work to Halliburton

Army Audit questions $1.4b in Halliburton bills

A top U.S. Army procurement official said on Monday Halliburton's deals in Iraq were the worst example of contract abuse she had seen as Pentagon auditors flagged over $1 billion of potential overcharges by the Texas-based firm. French and U.S. officials have been probing for some time allegations of millions of dollars in kickbacks in a Nigerian oil project that involved Halliburton and the French company Technip between 1995 and 2002.

IMTV: Halliburton is being charged with tax evasion in Kazakhstan.
http://www.independent-media.tv/gtheme.cfm?ftheme_id=35
Mark is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2005, 10:02 AM   #28
Manny
Illuminator
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 3,290
Quote:
Originally posted by Mark
You have no problem with an oil man running the government for his own (and his friends') personal profit. I do.

So would you, if it were a Democrat. The difference between you and me, is I am not a member of either party (disgusting homophobic rant redacted).
Actually, I've said that "there's a better-than-even chance I'll end up not liking this one," conceded that the money may disappear into the vapor and given a market-based reason for not proceeding with the project at this time. In fact, the closest thing to something nice which I've said about the project is that it is among the least objectionable things in a bad bill.

Why would you lie about what I said, Mark? It's all up there in the thread. Anyone can check it out for themselves. Are you really so fecking stupid that you think that I won't correct your lies? Or are you just intentionally trolling this forum?
Manny is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2005, 10:11 AM   #29
Mark
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 5,505
Quote:
Originally posted by manny
Actually, I've said that "there's a better-than-even chance I'll end up not liking this one," conceded that the money may disappear into the vapor and given a market-based reason for not proceeding with the project at this time. In fact, the closest thing to something nice which I've said about the project is that it is among the least objectionable things in a bad bill.

Why would you lie about what I said, Mark? It's all up there in the thread. Anyone can check it out for themselves. Are you really so fecking stupid that you think that I won't correct your lies? Or are you just intentionally trolling this forum?
You certainly have a gift for hysterical hyperbole. I did not lie, spanky. If I got the wrong impression, it was because of your "woo" comment which you have implied before, simply because I do not blindly support the Bush/Cheney agenda.

So...do you have a problem with Cheney/Halliburton and the blatant malfeasance, or don't you? The floor is yours.
Mark is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2005, 10:43 AM   #30
tim
Lasiorhinus latifrons
Combat Division
 
tim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,778
Gentlemen!
If you would be so kind, let's calm down and not post personal comments. It does not further your argument to do so.
Thank you.
__________________
I think we should be grateful that somehow the material in the universe came together and gave us consciousness. It was statiscally improbable. We won the lottery. We had a life.

Hubbard's Law: Don't take life too seriously; you won't get out of it alive.
tim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2005, 12:03 PM   #31
claimee
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 77
Quote:
Originally posted by Mark
The difference between you and me, is I am not a member of either party and and not willing to grab my ankles for either one of them. You are.
Quote:
Originally posted by Mark
You certainly have a gift for hysterical hyperbole.
claimee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2005, 12:06 PM   #32
Mark
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 5,505
Quote:
Originally posted by claimee
But calling me a "woo-woo" (many times) is perfectly OK, I guess.
Mark is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2005, 12:22 PM   #33
Jocko
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 5,466
Quote:
Originally posted by Mark
But calling me a "woo-woo" (many times) is perfectly OK, I guess.
If it has webbed feet and quacks...
Jocko is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2005, 12:30 PM   #34
Mark
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 5,505
Quote:
Originally posted by Jocko
If it has webbed feet and quacks...
Thank you. A most inteligent post.
Mark is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2005, 12:38 PM   #35
Manny
Illuminator
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 3,290
Quote:
Originally posted by Mark
If I got the wrong impression, it was because of your "woo" comment which you have implied before, simply because I do not blindly support the Bush/Cheney agenda.
In fact:

1) Each and every one of those comments came prior to my description of your bovine excrement as "woo." Indeed, my description of the bill as a poor one and my characterization of the provision as merely being "one of the least objectionable" came in my very first post to this thread. So you're obviously lying about that.

2) I did not use the term woo "simply because (you) do not blindly support the Bush/Cheney agenda," but to describe your continuing and intentional pattern of posting "facts" to this forum which are demonstrably false.

3) The term "woo" is, by a large large large margin, the absolutely most charitable possible description of the stuff you post here. You should be grateful that I chose such a term to characterize the garbage you intentionally and maliciously post as factual.

4) The bus that picked you up for school was shorter than the other kids' bus, wasn't it?
Manny is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2005, 12:58 PM   #36
Mark
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 5,505
Tim, is it only those of us on the Left who are required to be polite? Or will you be correcting Manny on this?
Mark is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2005, 02:51 PM   #37
gnome
Penultimate Amazing
 
gnome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 10,325
Quote:
Originally posted by Mark
Tim, is it only those of us on the Left who are required to be polite? Or will you be correcting Manny on this?
In all honesty, Mark, it doesn't matter who "has" to be polite... if one side keeps their cool, and the other doesn't... who has the advantage?

I think politeness is actually an advantage, that only gets better if the other side foregoes it.
__________________

gnome is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2005, 03:57 PM   #38
Mark
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 5,505
Quote:
Originally posted by gnome
In all honesty, Mark, it doesn't matter who "has" to be polite... if one side keeps their cool, and the other doesn't... who has the advantage?

I think politeness is actually an advantage, that only gets better if the other side foregoes it.
I agree, but will feel better if both sides are chastized equally. But you are right.
Mark is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2005, 06:16 PM   #39
BPSCG
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 17,539
Quote:
Originally posted by CapelDodger
The BPSCG's wedding? Legendary.
I don't remember you being there. Of course, there are a lot of things I don't remember about it...

I do remember something about a charge for removal of two musk oxen from the second floor balcony. And I seem to recall there was a fistfight between the JP, my niece and some homeless guy who'd wandered in off the street, which ended when the Alexandria Police showed up with Tazers.



Historical note: Thomas Jefferson had one of his inaugural balls at Gadsby's.
BPSCG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2005, 12:48 PM   #40
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
 
CapelDodger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Cardiff, South Wales
Posts: 22,730
Quote:
Originally posted by BPSCG
I don't remember you being there. Of course, there are a lot of things I don't remember about it...

I do remember something about a charge for removal of two musk oxen from the second floor balcony. And I seem to recall there was a fistfight between the JP, my niece and some homeless guy who'd wandered in off the street, which ended when the Alexandria Police showed up with Tazers.
The stuff of legend.
__________________
It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward - Lewis Carroll (1832-1898)

God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so - William of Conches, c1150
CapelDodger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:47 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.