[quote]PGJ wrote:
EVERYTHING goes out for bid and always goes to the lowest bidder, or the company owned by handicapped women or minorities. [/quote]
So, the Halliburton “no bid contract” is a myth, or the people working for Halliburton are handicapped, women or minorities?
WOW! Thanks for enlightening me.
[quote]Petedacook wrote:
PGJ wrote:
The military doesn’t buy the most expensive stuff. EVERYTHING goes out for bid and always goes to the lowest bidder, or the company owned by handicapped women or minorities. There is no way to build a cheap F-35 or M-1 Abrams. The days of the $500 hammer are long-gone. EVERYTHING is scrutinized closely. Sometimes we end up with crap gear because it’s from the “lowest bidder” who claims to meet government specifications. We DEFINATELY don’t get the best stuff available, thanks to congressional oversight.
HUH? Are you really not aware of the gross over charging currently being done by Halliburton who was given a no bid contract?
[/quote]
Oh shit! I had no idea Haliburton was a military organization. Fuck I’m stupid.
Tool.
[quote]Petedacook wrote:
PGJ wrote:
EVERYTHING goes out for bid and always goes to the lowest bidder, or the company owned by handicapped women or minorities.
So, the Halliburton “no bid contract” is a myth, or the people working for Halliburton are handicapped, women or minorities?
WOW! Thanks for enlightening me.
[/quote]
Again, asshole, Halliburton is not military (which was what I was talking about). I don’t know how nation building contracts work. Sometimes, there is no other bidder because the job is so enormous. I’m no expert, but maybe that’s what happened in this case.
I would assume that if the government violated some equal opportunity contract policy that other companies would be up in arms about not being afforded the opportunity to make a bid. But since the only people complaining are hippies, I’m guessing everything is legal.
[quote]PGJ wrote:
Petedacook wrote:
PGJ wrote:
EVERYTHING goes out for bid and always goes to the lowest bidder, or the company owned by handicapped women or minorities.
So, the Halliburton “no bid contract” is a myth, or the people working for Halliburton are handicapped, women or minorities?
WOW! Thanks for enlightening me.
Again, asshole, Halliburton is not military (which was what I was talking about). I don’t know how nation building contracts work. Sometimes, there is no other bidder because the job is so enormous. I’m no expert, but maybe that’s what happened in this case.
I would assume that if the government violated some equal opportunity contract policy that other companies would be up in arms about not being afforded the opportunity to make a bid. But since the only people complaining are hippies, I’m guessing everything is legal.[/quote]
PGJ,
Putting aside the disaster that is petey, doesn’t it insult your intelligence when you hear, “Bush invaded Iraq for oil money?”
If George Bush makes one dollar over his lifetime on oil from Iraq, I’ll kiss my own ass and call it a grapefruit.
Not one of these nitwits will ever man up and admit (when GWB dies) that they were completely wrong.
These dinks throw out this crap without a shred of proof. They remind me of monkey’s in a cage throwing their feces to see which one sticks.
The sad thing, is that they believe it.
JeffR
[quote]JeffR wrote:
PGJ wrote:
Petedacook wrote:
PGJ wrote:
EVERYTHING goes out for bid and always goes to the lowest bidder, or the company owned by handicapped women or minorities.
So, the Halliburton “no bid contract” is a myth, or the people working for Halliburton are handicapped, women or minorities?
WOW! Thanks for enlightening me.
Again, asshole, Halliburton is not military (which was what I was talking about). I don’t know how nation building contracts work. Sometimes, there is no other bidder because the job is so enormous. I’m no expert, but maybe that’s what happened in this case.
I would assume that if the government violated some equal opportunity contract policy that other companies would be up in arms about not being afforded the opportunity to make a bid. But since the only people complaining are hippies, I’m guessing everything is legal.
PGJ,
Putting aside the disaster that is petey, doesn’t it insult your intelligence when you hear, “Bush invaded Iraq for oil money?”
If George Bush makes one dollar over his lifetime on oil from Iraq, I’ll kiss my own ass and call it a grapefruit.
Not one of these nitwits will ever man up and admit (when GWB dies) that they were completely wrong.
These dinks throw out this crap without a shred of proof. They remind me of monkey’s in a cage throwing their feces to see which one sticks.
The sad thing, is that they believe it.
JeffR
[/quote]
The Democrats persecuted Lincoln the same way during the Civil War as they are persecuting President Bush now. It’s amazing how the two Presidencies are similar. Lincoln was called every name in the book by Democrats, the populace wanted out of the unpopolar war…just let the South go, it’s not worth it, and so on.
Now he’s considered one of the greatest of all time. A man with a vision who stuck to his guns and made tough, unpopular decisions for the betterment of the country, even when the country didn’t understand.
Libs will believe ANYTHING that is anti-Bush…ANYTHING.
[quote]PGJ wrote:
Petedacook wrote:
PGJ wrote:
The military doesn’t buy the most expensive stuff. EVERYTHING goes out for bid and always goes to the lowest bidder, or the company owned by handicapped women or minorities. There is no way to build a cheap F-35 or M-1 Abrams. The days of the $500 hammer are long-gone. EVERYTHING is scrutinized closely. Sometimes we end up with crap gear because it’s from the “lowest bidder” who claims to meet government specifications. We DEFINATELY don’t get the best stuff available, thanks to congressional oversight.
HUH? Are you really not aware of the gross over charging currently being done by Halliburton who was given a no bid contract?
Oh shit! I had no idea Haliburton was a military organization. Fuck I’m stupid.
Tool.
[/quote]
Well, why then is Halliburton performing services that have ALWAYS been performed by military personnel in the past? Not only are the functions being performed by halliburton historically always military functions, they were historically performed at a significantly lower price. Since you are SO well informed, I will assume you know the functions and exactly what functions I am referring to.
[quote]PGJ wrote:
The Democrats persecuted Lincoln the same way during the Civil War as they are persecuting President Bush now. It’s amazing how the two Presidencies are similar. Lincoln was called every name in the book by Democrats, the populace wanted out of the unpopolar war…just let the South go, it’s not worth it, and so on.
Now he’s considered one of the greatest of all time. A man with a vision who stuck to his guns and made tough, unpopular decisions for the betterment of the country, even when the country didn’t understand.
Libs will believe ANYTHING that is anti-Bush…ANYTHING.
[/quote]
This discussion is not about Lincoln, and has nothing to do with any historical actions of any political party. This discussion is about Bush.
You asked what children have died before looking up the meaning of the word, not realising children was being appropriately used to reference the offspring of American citizens.
Yet you refuse to acknowledge you were incorrect in your assumption no AMERICAN children have died.
Then you proclaim there is no over spending in the military, but when confronted the grim reality of the first thing to pop into my mind, Halliburton, yuo ignorantly write them off as if they not actually performing historically military functions.
Do we really need to look at the allocation of spending that has taken place for this war? The allocation of spending that is geared toward the military?
I think not. I propose you will ignore my argument again, refuse to admit you are wrong, call me a name, and make another historical reference which has no meaning in this argument, or any argument you have put forward in this thread.
Whatever.
[quote]Petedacook wrote:
You asked what children have died before looking up the meaning of the word, not realising children was being appropriately used to reference the offspring of American citizens.
Yet you refuse to acknowledge you were incorrect in your assumption no AMERICAN children have died.
[/quote]
We have not lost any children in the war vs. Iraq. We have lost soldiers, full-grown adults who made the decision to serve in a volunteer army.
This is key point of argument that you cannot gloss over with semantics.
I have not served, but I would bet my left arm that every last soldier fighting in Iraq would take pretty deep offense at your implication that they were innocent children that were duped into fighting.
As for the rest of your political posts, you’re a nut.
If guys like JeffR and his peeps would look through the trees to see the forest, they would be enlightened. Why in the FUCK would Cheney leave his $27 million a year at Halliburton to become second fiddle to the most idiotic Commander in Chief we have ever known? Because of the kick backs, slides under the table, and control of the largest oil production country in the world.
Keep voting for a guy who is “religious” or has “Christian” values… You follow a moron based on his “gut feelings”. Sheep being led to slaughter. Good post Pete!
[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
Petedacook wrote:
You asked what children have died before looking up the meaning of the word, not realising children was being appropriately used to reference the offspring of American citizens.
Yet you refuse to acknowledge you were incorrect in your assumption no AMERICAN children have died.
We have not lost any children in the war vs. Iraq. We have lost soldiers, full-grown adults who made the decision to serve in a volunteer army.
This is key point of argument that you cannot gloss over with semantics.
I have not served, but I would bet my left arm that every last soldier fighting in Iraq would take pretty deep offense at your implication that they were innocent children that were duped into fighting.
As for the rest of your political posts, you’re a nut.[/quote]
Yo gunslinger, I served, and my buddies are serving now, and we were lied to, DUPED, and now our tours are extended. Hey, since you’re a gunslinger, join up! Join my marine corps. and show how approving of the War you are! Come on, badass, and bring your posse!
[quote]PGJ wrote:
The Democrats persecuted Lincoln the same way during the Civil War as they are persecuting President Bush now. It’s amazing how the two Presidencies are similar. Lincoln was called every name in the book by Democrats, the populace wanted out of the unpopolar war…just let the South go, it’s not worth it, and so on.
Now he’s considered one of the greatest of all time. A man with a vision who stuck to his guns and made tough, unpopular decisions for the betterment of the country, even when the country didn’t understand.
[/quote]
Oh my, his side wrote the official history books and he gets to look good in them?
[quote]micromuscle wrote:
tGunslinger wrote:
Petedacook wrote:
You asked what children have died before looking up the meaning of the word, not realising children was being appropriately used to reference the offspring of American citizens.
Yet you refuse to acknowledge you were incorrect in your assumption no AMERICAN children have died.
We have not lost any children in the war vs. Iraq. We have lost soldiers, full-grown adults who made the decision to serve in a volunteer army.
This is key point of argument that you cannot gloss over with semantics.
I have not served, but I would bet my left arm that every last soldier fighting in Iraq would take pretty deep offense at your implication that they were innocent children that were duped into fighting.
As for the rest of your political posts, you’re a nut.
Yo gunslinger, I served, and my buddies are serving now, and we were lied to, DUPED, and now our tours are extended. Hey, since you’re a gunslinger, join up! Join my marine corps. and show how approving of the War you are! Come on, badass, and bring your posse![/quote]
Don’t play that game. I served too. I left a good friend back there. My little brother did two tours and one of my best friends from the fleet is there for his third. A bunch of reservists I trained up are going back again as well. Guess how many of us still believe in the cause?
Show me an anti-war Marine and I’ll show you ten who still believe in the fight. Join “your” Marine Corps? laughing I don’t think the Marine Corps is full of guys crying that they were lied to.
Funny too, in my experience the guys that talked the most shit were some pogues emailing home how crazy things are while the grunts were out in the field.
mike
[quote]orion wrote:
PGJ wrote:
The Democrats persecuted Lincoln the same way during the Civil War as they are persecuting President Bush now. It’s amazing how the two Presidencies are similar. Lincoln was called every name in the book by Democrats, the populace wanted out of the unpopolar war…just let the South go, it’s not worth it, and so on.
Now he’s considered one of the greatest of all time. A man with a vision who stuck to his guns and made tough, unpopular decisions for the betterment of the country, even when the country didn’t understand.
Oh my, his side wrote the official history books and he gets to look good in them?
[/quote]
Shit, now the Austrian socialist libertarian is going to give us an American history lesson. Can’t wait for this.
[quote]PGJ wrote:
Shit, now the Austrian socialist libertarian is going to give us an American history lesson. Can’t wait for this.[/quote]
Strangely, this comes up a lot - and then we amusingly learn Orion’s grasp of the history and issues is five feet wide and an inch deep.
[quote]micromuscle wrote:
tGunslinger wrote:
Petedacook wrote:
You asked what children have died before looking up the meaning of the word, not realising children was being appropriately used to reference the offspring of American citizens.
Yet you refuse to acknowledge you were incorrect in your assumption no AMERICAN children have died.
We have not lost any children in the war vs. Iraq. We have lost soldiers, full-grown adults who made the decision to serve in a volunteer army.
This is key point of argument that you cannot gloss over with semantics.
I have not served, but I would bet my left arm that every last soldier fighting in Iraq would take pretty deep offense at your implication that they were innocent children that were duped into fighting.
As for the rest of your political posts, you’re a nut.
Yo gunslinger, I served, and my buddies are serving now, and we were lied to, DUPED, and now our tours are extended. Hey, since you’re a gunslinger, join up! Join my marine corps. and show how approving of the War you are! Come on, badass, and bring your posse![/quote]
Aren’t you a 33 year old woman? You said this in another thread. I know: you could be a female marine.
I’m too damn old to join now (52). You youngsters should join, if not in. Why sit at some desk job, when you could be fighting evil and defending the most noble, moral country in the history of this planet?
[quote]micromuscle wrote:
If guys like JeffR and his peeps would look through the trees to see the forest, they would be enlightened. Why in the FUCK would Cheney leave his $27 million a year at Halliburton to become second fiddle to the most idiotic Commander in Chief we have ever known? Because of the kick backs, slides under the table, and control of the largest oil production country in the world.
Keep voting for a guy who is “religious” or has “Christian” values… You follow a moron based on his “gut feelings”. Sheep being led to slaughter. Good post Pete![/quote]
Hey, micro.
I’m growing pretty fond of you. I see your game. You are just trying to rile us up. You don’t believe what you type.
I have to admit, you had me going.
I was going to ask you to produce a shred of proof that Cheney has or will ever profit from the Iraq invasion. However, I know you were kidding.
You win, you fooled me.
JeffR
[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
We have not lost any children in the war vs. Iraq.
[/quote]
Look up the meaning of the word “children” before you atart spouting nonesense. How can you possibly know anything about politics when you do not know the meaning of a word that you are criticizing the use of?
Oh yea. Like the National Guard. I forgot about them.
Too bad the National Guard was not like it is today when good ol’boy George dodged the draft by “volunteering” to serve.
[quote]
This is key point of argument that you cannot gloss over with semantics.
I have not served, but I would bet my left arm that every last soldier fighting in Iraq would take pretty deep offense at your implication that they were innocent children that were duped into fighting.
As for the rest of your political posts, you’re a nut.[/quote]
Since we are name calling, you are an idiot that chasitses the use of a word before knowing the meaning.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
First of all you never pointed out even one lie. No not one.
Second of all, with this logic why are you even bothering with all of the hate Bush posts. You must think that you can influence others, right?
Either that or you are just venting between meals.
[/quote]
I read your post this far and decided not to go on.
I pointed out that after years of touting “stay the course,” George Bush then said his party has never been “stay the course.”
How is this not a lie? Do you reaslly not know bush spouted off stay the course for years, then during the recent elections turned around and said he has never been stay the course?
Seriously, how is this not a lie?
Here you go, some more lies. Please tell me how the above is not a lie, and the following are not lies. Then I will agree to debate seriously with you.
Bush was against Sen. John McCain’s call for a law specifically
banning cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of foreign suspects
in the war on terror and then he was for it.
Judge Alito was interviewed before President Bush passed him
over and selected Harriet Miers. How is he now the most
qualified candidate for the Supreme Court?
In his recent news conference, George Bush Jr. suggested that
our nation’s “problem” with high gasoline prices was caused by
the lack of a national energy policy, and tried to blame it
all on Bill Clinton. First, Junior said, “This is a problem
that’s been a long time in coming. We haven’t had an energy
policy in this country.”
This was followed by, “That’s exactly what I?ve been saying to
the American people-10 years ago if we’d had an energy strategy,
we would be able to diversify away from foreign dependence.
And-but we haven’t done that. And now we find ourselves in the
fix we’re in.”
Jimmy Carter delivered this televised speech on April 18, 1977:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/carter/filmmore/ps_energy.html
[Bush Remarks, Cincinnati OH, 10/7/02]
Fact: Saddam Did not Have Chief Requirements for Nuclear
Weapons
The Washington Post reported, “What Hussein did not have
was the principal requirement for a nuclear weapon, a
sufficient quantity of highly enriched uranium or
plutonium. And the U.S. government, authoritative
intelligence officials said, had only circumstantial
evidence that Iraq was trying to obtain those
materials.” Inspectors in postwar Iraq have “found the
former nuclear weapons program, described as a ‘grave
and gathering danger’ by President Bush and a ‘mortal
threat’ by Vice President Cheney, in much the same
shattered state left by U.N. inspectors in the 1990s.”
[Washington Post, 8/10/03, 1/7/04]
[Bush, State of the Union, 1/28/03]
Fact: Bush Administration Knew Claim Was False
In March 2002, both the CIA and State Department
learned that evidence linking Iraq to Niger was
unfounded. In October, CIA Director Tenet personally
intervened with Condoleezza Rice’s deputy National
Security Advisor to have the charge removed from Bush’s
speech to the nation. Rice herself was sent a memo
debunking the claim. In January, just days before Bush
uttered the false charge CIA officials tried again to
remove the language, but the White House insisted it
remain – with added the caveat that they had received
the information from British sources.
[Bush State of the Union, 1/28/03; Time, 7/21/03 Issue;
Hadley/Bartlett Gaggle, 7/22/03; New York Times, 7/13/03;
Washington Post, 7/20/03; NPR, 6/19/03]
Fact: State Department Said Bush Rushed to Judgment
The New York Times reported, “The State Department’s
intelligence division is disputing the Central
Intelligence Agency’s conclusion that mysterious
trailers found in Iraq were for making biological
weapons, United States government officials said today.
In a classified June 2 [2003] memorandum, the officials
said, the department’s Bureau of Intelligence
and Research said it was premature to conclude that the
trailers were evidence of an Iraqi biological weapons
program, as President Bush has done…Administration
officials said the State Department agency was given no
warning that the C.I.A. report was being produced, or
made public.” [New York Times, 6/26/03]
Fact: Sign Was Produced by White House
“White House press secretary Scott McClellan later
acknowledged that the sign was produced by the White
House,” though he claimed that the Lincoln’s crew had
requested some sort of banner. According to reports,
“The man responsible for the banner, Scott Sforza, a
former ABC producer now with the White House
communications office…is known for the
production of the sophisticated backdrops that appear
behind Mr. Bush with the White House message of the
day, like ‘Helping Small Business,’ repeated over and
over.”
[Washington Post, 10/29/03; New York Times, 10/29/03]
Fact: Deficit Will Be Largest in History and Will
Exceed $400 Billion Every Year for Next Ten Years
The deficit will exceed $400 billion every year
through 2014. By 2014, the deficit will reach $708
billion. In 2004, the deficit is projected to reach a
record high of $477 billion, dwarfing the previous
record of $290 billion posted by Bush’s father in 1992.
[Congressional Budget Office, 1/26/04, 2/27/04;
Center on Budget & Policy Priorities, 1/21/04, 2/1/04]
Fact: Bush Deficits Due Largely to Tax Cuts
In 2002, due largely to Bush’s tax cuts, the federal
government posted a deficit of $158 billion and
returned to deficit for the first time since 1997. In
2004, Bush’s three tax cuts over as many years reduced
revenues by $270 billion. Over 35 percent of the $9.9
trillion deterioration from 2002-2011 is due to Bush’s
tax cuts. By 2014, tax cuts will account for 40 percent
of the deterioration. Despite Bush’s claims to the
contrary, only 6 percent of the $477 billion deficit in
2004 is due to the lackluster economy.
[Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 10/21/03;
Congressional Budget Office, 3/04; CBO, Historical
Budget Data, Table 1 http://www.cbo.gov; Center on
Budget and Policy Priorities, 10/27/03]
Fact: Bush Initially Opposed Independent 9-11
Commission
Bush opposed an independent inquiry into 9/11,
arguing it would duplicate a probe conducted by
Congress. In July 2002, his administration issued a
“statement of policy” that read “…the Administration
would oppose an amendment that would create a new
commission to conduct a similar review [to Congress’s
investigation].” [Statement of Administration
Policy, Executive Office of the President, 7/24/02;
Los Angeles Times, 11/28/02]
Fact: Bush Administration Intentionally Hid Cost of
Plan To Win Votes in Congress
In late January 2004, the Administration announced
they had underestimated the total cost of the package
by $135 billion. Bush relied on a $400 billion figure
for the first decade of the prescription drug benefit
in persuading fiscal conservatives to support the plan
last November. But less than two months after signing
the legislation, and two years before the benefit
becomes available to seniors, the Department of Health
and Human Services revised the number up to $535
billion. According to the Washington Post, “Among a
small group of lawmakers who negotiated the bill’s
final version, ‘it was an open secret’ that
administration officials believed ‘there is no way this
is $400 billion.’”
[New York Times, 1/30/04; Washington Times, 12/8/03;
Washington Post, 1/31/04; Boston Globe, 1/30/04;
New York Times, 2/2/04]
Fact: Bush Overruled Whitman, Broke Campaign Promise to
Regulate Carbon Dioxide Emissions
In March 2001, in a letter to Republican Senators,
Bush overruled then-E.P.A. Administrator Christine
Todd Whitman and backed off a campaign pledge to
regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants,
after encountering strong resistance from the coal
and oil industries, as well as Republicans. “I do not
believe, however, that the government should impose on
power plants mandatory emissions reductions for carbon
dioxide, which is not a ‘pollutant’ under the Clean Air
Act,” Bush wrote in his letter. Many conservationists
view curbing carbon dioxide emissions, like “greenhouse
gases,” as a key to reducing global warming. [AP, 3/13/01;
Washington Post, 3/14/01; Bush letter to Senator Chuck
Hagel, 3/13/01]
Fact: No, He’s a Divider
The Washington Post reported, “As Bush begins the
final year of his term with Tuesday night’s State of
the Union address, partisans on both sides say the
tone of political discourse is as bad as ever – if
not worse.” One senior administration official said,
Bush could have built “trust and goodwill” by
pursuing more broadly appealing initiatives. One
former Bush aide said the White House “relished the
‘us versus them’ thing.” [Washington Post, 1/18/04]
After former Ambassador Joseph Wilson publicly
challenged Bush’s claim that Iraq sought uranium in
Africa, his wife–a covert CIA operative–was exposed
by columnist Robert Novak. Novak said her identity was
given to him by senior administration officials. “A
senior administration official said that before Novak’s
column ran, two top White House officials called at
least six Washington journalists and disclosed the
identity and occupation of Wilson’s wife…
‘Clearly, it was meant purely and simply for revenge,’
the senior official said of the alleged leak. Sources
familiar with the conversations said the leakers were
seeking to undercut Wilson’s credibility.” [Washington
Post, 9/28/03]
Bush called on senior White House advisers and the
Republican Party leadership to wage attacks against
Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle. According to the
Washington Times, “The White House is escalating its
attacks against Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle…
[W]ith polls showing the Republican Party is losing
some support in its handling of the economy, President
Bush last week ordered senior advisers to take the
gloves off and sharpen their rhetoric.” [Washington
Times, 12/7/01]
Bush is against campaign finance reform;
then he’s for it.
Bush is against a Homeland Security Department;
then he’s for it.
Bush is against a 9/11 commission;
then he’s for it.
Bush is against an Iraq WMD investigation;
then he’s for it.
Bush is against deficits;
then he’s for them.
Bush is for slashing overtime pay for American workers
then he is against it.
Bush is for free trade;
then he’s for tariffs on steel;
then he’s against them again.
Bush is against the U.S. taking a role in the Israeli
Palestinian conflict;
then he pushes for a “road map” and a Palestinian State.
Bush is for states right to decide on gay marriage,
then he is for changing the constitution.
Bush first says he’ll provide money for first responders
(fire, police, emergency), then he doesn’t.
Bush first says that ‘help is on the way’ to the military …
then he cuts benefits.
Bush-"The most important thing is for us to find
Osama bin Laden.
Bush-"I don’t know where he is. I have no idea and
I really don’t care. He isn’t our number one priority.
Bush claims to be in favor of the environment and
then secretly starts drilling on Padre Island.
Bush talks about helping education and increases
mandates while cutting funding.
Bush first says the U.S. won’t negotiate with North Korea.
Now he will
Did you want more?