Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 84

Thread: Money well spent?

  1. #61
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4259188]When people bring up Haliburton it's like a trigger that says "I am a mindless bufoon". Where is the evidence of wrongdoing? Not a shred. It's the mindless Bush lied people died crown that spout this nonsense. Again the irony in this thread is that those same mindless drones are here defending Obama's green jobs crony capitalism. It is indefensible yet here they are.[/QUOTE]

    You may want to Google and see the money Halliburton admitted stealing and that is just one thing I remember off the top of my head. Haliburton is a giant and has been responsible for a lot of horrific things.

  2. #62
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,919
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4259188]When people bring up Haliburton it's like a trigger that says "I am a mindless bufoon". Where is the evidence of wrongdoing? Not a shred. It's the mindless Bush lied people died crown that spout this nonsense. Again the irony in this thread is that those same mindless drones are here defending Obama's green jobs crony capitalism. It is indefensible yet here they are.[/QUOTE]

    Another irony is that you point to the irony of others and don't see your own. The difference between defensible and indefensible is determined by nothing more than a change in landscape.

    </mindlessbuffoonrantover>

  3. #63
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,927
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4259188]When people bring up Haliburton it's like a trigger that says "I am a mindless bufoon". Where is the evidence of wrongdoing? Not a shred. It's the mindless Bush lied people died crown that spout this nonsense. Again the irony in this thread is that those same mindless drones are here defending Obama's green jobs crony capitalism. It is indefensible yet here they are.[/QUOTE]

    Outside the "They started the War for Haliburton" theory, the test for corruption is quite straitforward.

    1. Name a contract issued without competition to Haliburton.
    2. Cite the Haliburton competitor who was refused to bid to it.
    3. Lay out why that competitor should have been given the contract instead.
    4. Cite specific instances where Haliburton failed to live up to the terms of that contract, and was paid anyway.

    If one can do that, they would have a case for malfeasance worth persuit.

  4. #64
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4259188]When people bring up Haliburton it's like a trigger that says "I am a mindless bufoon". .[/QUOTE]

    great response bro. It's not just Haliburton. Every defense contractor or supplier benefits from war. Alot of these companies donate money to politicians. every bomb that is dropped must be replaced. We are talking about the military industrial complex and it's not just Iraq either. Although in that particular case, it was a dubious war that the public never fully supported, and it appears the beneficiaries were corporations, not American taxpayers.

  5. #65
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,927
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4259245]Every defense contractor or supplier benefits from war.[/quote]

    Thats alot like saying "every farmer and food wholesaler benefits from hunger".

    Are programs to help feed the poor really secret conspriacies to provide money to "Big Agra"?

    At some point, there is a burden of proof required. To show in real terms that something untowards occured.

    And once proven, there is no right/left, in my experience. Every taxpayer hates cheaters, law breakers and other leaches taking public money they don't have any right to have, right?

    [quote]it appears the beneficiaries were corporations, not American taxpayers.[/QUOTE]

    Do Amercian taxpayers work for these corporations?

    But you raise a good question, should there not be some clear-cut rationale in our Foreign Policy as to how those policeis benefit American taxpayers. I would strongly agree with you that there should.

  6. #66
    [QUOTE=parafly;4259205]Another irony is that you point to the irony of others and don't see your own. The difference between defensible and indefensible is determined by nothing more than a change in landscape.

    </mindlessbuffoonrantover>[/QUOTE]

    Your confused and i understand that. I would never defend ethanol subsidies or farm subsidies or any of that crap. Even worse is straight up throwing money down the drain to green companies owned by big donors that have zero chance of success. None of it is defensible. An argument can be made The comedy is to watch the libs on here trying to defend the action or justify it because they claim it has happened before. Instead they should be railing against it and against the mistakes and corruption of the past.

  7. #67
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4259245]great response bro. It's not just Haliburton. Every defense contractor or supplier benefits from war. Alot of these companies donate money to politicians. every bomb that is dropped must be replaced. We are talking about the military industrial complex and it's not just Iraq either. Although in that particular case, it was a dubious war that the public never fully supported, and it appears the beneficiaries were corporations, not American taxpayers.[/QUOTE]

    Ok i accept your argument that defense contractors benefit from war. Now what does that have to do with this one specific company that people keep bringing up? Do Boeing and Lockheed Martin benefit from defense contracts? How does a company that gets awarded a government contract through the usual bidding process, which then provides a good or service in exchange for the money to the government, compare to a president that hands out blank checks to donors companies for nothing other then a failed green jobs agenda? Should we as taxpayers be outraged that the government lent money to companies that evidence clearly shows they knew were failing? Should we be more outraged when we find out those doomed companies are owned by political bundlers?

  8. #68
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4259273]Ok i accept your argument that defense contractors benefit from war. Now what does that have to do with this one specific company that people keep bringing up? Do Boeing and Lockheed Martin benefit from defense contracts? How does a company that gets awarded a government contract through the usual bidding process, which then provides a good or service in exchange for the money to the government, compare to a president that hands out blank checks to donors companies for nothing other then a failed green jobs agenda? Should we as taxpayers be outraged that the government lent money to companies that evidence clearly shows they knew were failing? Should we be more outraged when we find out those doomed companies are owned by political bundlers?[/QUOTE]

    Halliburton and other contractors make it easier for the U.S., although more expensive. Their deaths do not count on the books and no need for a draft.

  9. #69
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4259256]Thats alot like saying "every farmer and food wholesaler benefits from hunger".

    Are programs to help feed the poor really secret conspriacies to provide money to "Big Agra"?[/quote]

    if we spent 3 trillion dollars over 10 years to fight hunger, then yeah maybe.

    we talk an awful lot about spending on this site but very few spending hawks are willing to admit the scope and the level of spending on the war on terror was 1) completely unnecessary 2) completely out of wack. If we spent a couple billion on Iraq like we did on Libya it would be alot harder to say Dick Cheney did it for his friends to make money.

    [QUOTE=Warfish;4259256]
    At some point, there is a burden of proof required. To show in real terms that something untowards occured.[/quote]

    the evidence that Cheney had Powell present to the UN, has, over the years been discredited. HE collected it, falsified it and lied that it was real. Does this prove the whole thing was for Halliburton's benefit... no but there is some shady things the Vice President did that we basically swept under the rug for the good of the republic.

    [QUOTE=Warfish;4259256]
    Do Amercian taxpayers work for these corporations?

    But you raise a good question, should there not be some clear-cut rationale in our Foreign Policy as to how those policeis benefit American taxpayers. I would strongly agree with you that there should.[/QUOTE]

    Forget the taxpayers how about the soldiers? If we ask a soldier to die for a cause it should be worth dying for. IT's not rocket science.

  10. #70
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4259273]How does a company that gets awarded a government contract through the usual bidding process, which then provides a good or service in exchange for the money to the government, compare to a president that hands out blank checks to donors companies for nothing other then a failed green jobs agenda??[/QUOTE]

    1) it's a huge difference of scope a few mil here and there doesn't compare to the tens or hundreds billions spent on contractors. Solendra and Iraq are not comparable. it's like comparing a person shoplifting a candy bar to Bernie Madoff. we can say both are morally wrong but the outrage is not the same, nor should it be.

    2) it's a matter of cost/benefit. If someone builds a solar power plant, that's energy we use. If we invade Iraq, and occupy it for 10 years, what is the benefit?

  11. #71
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,927
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4259348]we talk an awful lot about spending on this site but very few spending hawks are willing to admit the scope and the level of spending on the war on terror was 1) completely unnecessary 2) completely out of wack.[/QUOTE]

    Probably because they disagree with you, like you disagree with them on what constitutes "wasteful spending".

    Speaking of spending and the like, I was browsing through the archive some yesterday, found quite a few very interesting comments you made way back when, on spending, deficits, vetoes and more. Might have to dredge a few of them back up to counter your views today.;)

    That, and I miss Jets5ever.:(

    [QUOTE]If we spent a couple billion on Iraq like we did on Libya it would be alot harder to say Dick Cheney did it for his friends to make money. [/QUOTE]

    Except that is not proof of fruad or malfeasense Bit. It's a conspiracy theory. You have less hard proof than Cheney had on Iraq's WMD's.

    [QUOTE]the evidence that Cheney had Powell present to the UN, has, over the years been discredited. HE collected it, falsified it and lied that it was real.[/QUOTE]

    Again, being discredited does not equal being falsified for personal gain. You make it out as if Cheney himself persoanlly created all the intel involved, and the Agencies of our intelligence branches had no involvement at all. Thats a leap you're making, based (IMO) on politics, not hard evidence.

    For example, despite the fact that the Libyan intervention certainly did alot to protect European Oil Interests in that country, while doing almost nothing geopolitically for the American taxpayer who paid for it, I note you don't raise many conspiracies about that.

    [QUOTE]Does this prove the whole thing was for Halliburton's benefit... no but there is some shady things the Vice President did that we basically swept under the rug for the good of the republic.[/QUOTE]

    Then by all means, prove it, with evidence. If you could, I would embrace you for it, and join you in calling for the most severe penalties applicable to all involved.

    But it takes proof. Not speculation and assumption.

    [quote]Forget the taxpayers how about the soldiers? If we ask a soldier to die for a cause it should be worth dying for. IT's not rocket science.[/QUOTE]

    I agree. Any millitary conflict we as a Nation enter should have clear, widely majority supported, unambiguous goals and (even if kept secret for operational reasons) exit-strategies.

  12. #72
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4259353]1) it's a huge difference of scope a few mil here and there doesn't compare to the tens or hundreds billions spent on contractors. Solendra and Iraq are not comparable. it's like comparing a person shoplifting a candy bar to Bernie Madoff. we can say both are morally wrong but the outrage is not the same, nor should it be.

    2) it's a matter of cost/benefit. If someone builds a solar power plant, that's energy we use. If we invade Iraq, and occupy it for 10 years, what is the benefit?[/QUOTE]

    Not seeing the connection here. Are you saying its ok for the POTUS to pay off his cronies with a few billion because Bush lied and people died?

  13. #73
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4259365]

    That, and I miss Jets5ever.:(

    [/QUOTE]

    What ever happen to that guy?? He was a sharp guy!

  14. #74
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4259365] Again, being discredited does not equal being falsified for personal gain. You make it out as if Cheney himself persoanlly created all the intel involved, and the Agencies of our intelligence branches had no involvement at all. .[/QUOTE]

    Cheney opereated outside of the Intel Agencies, that he collected raw data himself, through his office in the White House and either didn't understand it or flat out lied. Either way it's not just as simple as there was bad intel and everyone was to blame. NO one had conclusive (actionable) evidence on WMD, except for Cheney with his yellowcake evidence. books have been written about how terrible Cheney's role was in the lead up to war.

  15. #75
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4259383]Not seeing the connection here. Are you saying its ok for the POTUS to pay off his cronies with a few billion because Bush lied and people died?[/QUOTE]

    IT wasn't a payoff it was a loan, an investment in technology. Unlike the war in Iraq if a solar plant gets built, someone gets benefit from that plant. Energy is harnessed. There is a cost/benefit analysis that you don't want to engage in.

  16. #76
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,927
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4259404]Cheney opereated outside of the Intel Agencies, that he collected raw data himself, through his office in the White House and either didn't understand it or flat out lied. Either way it's not just as simple as there was bad intel and everyone was to blame. NO one had conclusive (actionable) evidence on WMD, except for Cheney with his yellowcake evidence. books have been written about how terrible Cheney's role was in the lead up to war.[/QUOTE]

    We don't have any proof of this, and "books being written" is not proof either, especially when those books are written by players with a hand in the game themselves.

    If what you claim is true, then it is a huge failing that President Obama did not investigate and prosecute Vice President Cheney when he took office, honestly. If what you claim is true, that Cheney lied and created all the false intel knowingly, in a plot to vreate profit for his ex-employer Haliburton, and widespread proof exists....and Obama did not persue it, he has done almost as grave an injustice to the people as Cheney himself.

    The reality is, I'd guess, that there is no such proof. It's politics (as usual) and conspiracy theorizing (as usual), and happily for those who engage in it, they never have to back up their claims with actual evidence.

    I'll say it again, if what you claim is true, Cheney should burn for it.

    So why isn't he burning for it Bit? What does Obama gain by not investigating and not prosecuting what amounts (if you're to be believed) to a War Criminal, Mass Murderer, Abuser of Power and engager in massive fraud against the taxpayers of the United States?

  17. #77
    [QUOTE=cr726;4259204]You may want to Google and see the money Halliburton admitted stealing and that is just one thing I remember off the top of my head. Haliburton is a giant and has been responsible for a lot of horrific things.[/QUOTE]



    Looking at my HAL annual report. I wouldn't buy them but my broker has it my account he manages. Giant? Hardly. It generates less than $2bill profit on sales of $18 bill. Eh.
    Every company does some bad things even lily whites like Johnson and Johnson, Pfizer, Walmart, Kraft. Look at the commotion with McDonald's and their happy meal.

  18. #78
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4259404]Cheney opereated outside of the Intel Agencies, that he collected raw data himself, through his office in the White House and either didn't understand it or flat out lied. Either way it's not just as simple as there was bad intel and everyone was to blame. NO one had conclusive (actionable) evidence on WMD, except for Cheney with his yellowcake evidence. books have been written about how terrible Cheney's role was in the lead up to war.[/QUOTE]


    Actually, Saddam Hussein said he had weapons. And he wasn't lying. He used huge amounts of chemical weapons ( a WMD) during the Iran/Iraq war and even used them against the Kurdish areas in his own country.
    Was our intel faulty? To an extent. But what happened to his stockpile of chem weapons?

  19. #79
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,221
    [QUOTE=palmetto defender;4260252]Actually, Saddam Hussein said he had weapons. And he wasn't lying. He used huge amounts of chemical weapons ( a WMD) during the Iran/Iraq war and even used them against the Kurdish areas in his own country.
    Was our intel faulty? To an extent. But what happened to his stockpile of chem weapons?[/QUOTE]

    We will find them in Syria when Obama invades.

  20. #80
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,221
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4259407]IT wasn't a payoff it was a loan, an investment in technology. Unlike the war in Iraq if a solar plant gets built, someone gets benefit from that plant. Energy is harnessed. There is a cost/benefit analysis that you don't want to engage in.[/QUOTE]

    Right it doesn't become a payoff until they default.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us