Obama plans to halt future weapons programs, disarm our nuclear program and protect us.

[Amazon 7]

Geroge and his cronies have done VERY well for themselves and their right wing supporters.. at your defence contractors.. Blackwater... Haliburton..Bechtel.. and hundreds of others that have raided the Treasury. Lets also not forget what $140 has done for the Bush and Cheney Family coffers as well as all their oil buddies....Corporate welfare on a massive scale.. and it seems a whole lot of people are too fucking stupid to realize it....

[TankBuster 0]

I have an apology to make. As many times as I see "definitely" misspelled in these forums, I had vowed never to do it. But I did. Damn it.

Oh, and Amazon. Do you have any specifics of where the Republicans have voted themselves large portions of the public treasure? I voted Republican, and although I am allowed to keep more of my hard earned money, I have received none that others have paid in.

The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Way too easy


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/22/AR2007082200049.html

A recent congressional report estimated that federal spending on contracts awarded without "full and open" competition has tripled, to $207 billion, since 2000, with a $60 billion increase last year alone. The category includes deals in which officials take advantage of provisions allowing them to sidestep competition for speed and convenience and cases in which the government sharply limits the number of bidders or expands work under open-ended contracts

Keith Ashdown, chief investigator at Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonpartisan watchdog group, said that in many cases, officials are simply choosing favored contractors as part of a "club mentality."

"Contracting officials are throwing out decades of work to develop fair and sensible rules to promote competition," Ashdown said. "Government officials are skirting the rules in favor of expediency or their favored contractors."


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/25/60minutes/main551091.shtml


But, as 60 Minutes reported last spring, the earliest contracts were given to a few favored companies. And some of the biggest winners in the sweepstakes to rebuild Iraq have one thing in common: lots of very close friends in very high places. Correspondent Steve Kroft reports.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One is Halliburton, the Houston-based energy services and construction giant whose former CEO, Dick Cheney, is now vice president of the United States.

Even before the first shots were fired in Iraq, the Pentagon had secretly awarded Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown & Root a two-year, no-bid contract to put out oil well fires and to handle other unspecified duties involving war damage to the country’s petroleum industry. It is worth up to $7 billion.

And the beat goes on....


More friends of your Administration in action.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/06/21/iraq-and-big-oil-and-no-bid-contracts-oh-my/

Iraq, and Big Oil, and no-bid contracts … oh my

Dear Iraq, sorry the war hasn’t gone well. But now that the surge is wrapping up, we hope you won’t mind that we need several dozen permanent bases in your country. Oh, and did we mention that we’ll need you to approve some no-bid contracts for our oil companies, too? After all, what’s a few bases and oilfields among friends?

Four Western oil companies are in the final stages of negotiations this month on contracts that will return them to Iraq, 36 years after losing their oil concession to nationalization as Saddam Hussein rose to power.

Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP — the original partners in the Iraq Petroleum Company — along with Chevron and a number of smaller oil companies, are in talks with Iraq’s Oil Ministry for no-bid contracts to service Iraq’s largest fields, according to ministry officials, oil company officials and an American diplomat.

The deals, expected to be announced on June 30, will lay the foundation for the first commercial work for the major companies in Iraq since the American invasion, and open a new and potentially lucrative country for their operations.

The no-bid contracts are unusual for the industry, and the offers prevailed over others by more than 40 companies, including companies in Russia, China and India. The contracts, which would run for one to two years and are relatively small by industry standards, would nonetheless give the companies an advantage in bidding on future contracts in a country that many experts consider to be the best hope for a large-scale increase in oil production.

Daniel Altman provides some helpful context: “Imagine. At the precise moment when demand for oil was the highest in history, a recently democratized country with enormous reserves had the chance to sell extraction contracts to the highest bidder. This was a country that desperately needed the revenue to help rebuild its schools, power grid and water supply after a long internal conflict. So why did it hand out the contracts with no auction at all?”

And Andrew Sullivan answers the rhetorical question: “Because the US told them so. You don’t get to conquer a new province and not get any spoils, do you? Who needs ANWR or a carbon tax when you can drain Iraq at record high oil prices?”

[riddler 0]

Nuclear weapons are an outdated dinosaur in military strategy. They were used twice, in one war, 60 years ago. Even the threat of an nuclear war (the cold war) ended 20 years ago. The only reason the United States built nuclear weapons is to deter other superpowers who have a lot of them, and the other superpowers are smart enough to not use them. So it makes sense for the superpowers to all agree not to have them, and verify with each other that there's no programs going on. We all realized a long time ago that nukes don't make sense because there's no real defense, and there's nothing left to take over once you've used them. Does it make sense for China, Russia, France and the US to all nuke each other? It doesn't.

They fact that the US has a huge nuclear arsenal is not a deterrent to terrorists. The major deterrents to nuclear weapons are the outrageous amount of money it costs to produce them and the extremely difficult tasks of enriching uranium, the difficulty of putting one together, and the near-impossibility of creating a delivery system that can launch one to target. Does it make sense for us to have an arsenal of nukes to protect us from the nukes that the terrorists don't have? It doesn't.

What are we going to do in the unlikely event that a terrorist can actually detonate one? Are we going to nuke the entire country the terrorist was born in? Or how about the one that we think they are in now? Maybe we should nuke the country that we think they built it in? Can we even find the terrorist to nuke them? We haven't even found Osama Bin Laden yet - nearly seven years after 9/11. So how does it help against terrorism for the US to have nukes? It doesn't.

There's only one good reason for the US to have nuclear weapons. If violent extra-terrestrials come down from outer space and start blasting us with ray guns - then it would be handy to have some nukes up our sleeves. Somehow I don't see that scenario as too likely.

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Geroge and his cronies have done VERY well for themselves and their right wing supporters.. at your defence contractors.. Blackwater... Haliburton..Bechtel.. and hundreds of others that have raided the Treasury. Lets also not forget what $140 has done for the Bush and Cheney Family coffers as well as all their oil buddies....Corporate welfare on a massive scale.. and it seems a whole lot of people are too fucking stupid to realize it....

Ok, so now it's back to the corporations? Ok,we'll wait for you to find the information where those companies VOTED that money for themselves, like you said in your last rant post..

But in the meanwhile, let's see....

Halliburton contracts, 2000-2007
$809,052,571
Full/open competition: 67.1%
Follow on contract/Comptetition after exclusion of sources: 30.5%
Full and open competition, single bid: 2.4%

Bechtel contracts, 2000-2007
$33,276,204,467
Full/open competition: 84.5%
Follow on contract/Comptetition after exclusion of sources: 13%
Full and open competition, single bid: 1.1%
Unknown: 1.4%

Boeing contracts, 2000-2007
$148,723,616,109
Full/open competition: 23.7%
Follow on contract/Comptetition after exclusion of sources: 65.5%
Full and open competition, single bid: 8%

Wow, that's horrible ... DAMN Halliburton and Bechtel for their greed and dirty contracting practices!!

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Amazon 7]

Ah I see the Defender of the Right Wing Realm is SPINNING again...

Tell us ALL about how many Democrats are getting those contracts.. isnt there a CDIF out there somewhere you can hook your wagon to???

There is a BIG differrence in a company like Boeing that was awarded contracts based on competition.. and they are the single source for those choppers ... planes... missles.. etc
Then we have a former CEO of the company that he awards no bid contracts to.. or OTHER friends of the administration who got cost plus contracts for crap construction.... lucrative protection schemes for diplomats.. etc... look up FLEECING of America.... come on.. I know you can do it

And still you will protect them.. I guess those were all given to fellow "libertarians" as well

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Pentagon had secretly awarded Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown & Root a two-year, no-bid contract to put out oil well fires and to handle other unspecified duties involving war damage to the country’s petroleum industry. It is worth up to $7 billion.

Yes, they did - Halliburton was the only cleared company that was in the system at the time - courtesy, in part, of Clinton's use of them in the Balkans (and the no-bid contract awarded them there by Clinton).

Quote

And the bleating goes on....

Yes, it most surely does...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Ah I see the Defender of the Right Wing Realm is SPINNING again...

Tell us ALL about how many Democrats are getting those contracts.. isnt there a CDIF out there somewhere you can hook your wagon to???

Nope, sorry...just information from GAO - where's YOURS from?

Quote

There is a BIG differrence in a company like Boeing that was awarded contracts based on competition.. and they are the single source for those choppers ... planes... missles.. etc

Ah, yes, Amazon's 'Gerry Studds Defense' - "but it's DIFFERENT for THEM"...

Quote

Then we have a former CEO of the company that he awards no bid contracts to.. or OTHER friends of the administration who got cost plus contracts for crap construction.... lucrative protection schemes for diplomats.. etc... look up FLEECING of America.... come on.. I know you can do it

PROVE IT - show me the paperwork. All this supposed "proof" that you have and y'all STILL haven't managed to impeach them? Sounds like your "proof" isn't anything but a whole lotta pipe dreams.

Quote

And still you will protect them.. I guess those were all given to fellow "libertarians" as well

I don't 'protect' shit... I *DO* call YOU out on YOUR bullshit.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Amazon 7]

Would like some cheese with all that whine there Mikee

You should be able to afford it considering.......I keep posting it.. and you keep whining

I guess you will forever go on blaming the Democrats for all of this


http://dpc.senate.gov/dpc-new2.cfm?doc_name=inv2

Top Twenty Iraq Oversight Outrages Uncovered by the DPC

Repubicans in Congress Refuse to Demand Accountability in Iraq;
Billions of Dollars Wasted, Our Mission Undermined



Over the last three years, Senate Democratic Policy Committee (DPC) hearings have uncovered massive waste, fraud, and abuse relating to government contractors operating in Iraq. This report presents twenty of the worst oversight outrages, as documented in testimony and evidence presented at DPC hearings:



1) Halliburton billed taxpayers $1.4 billion in questionable and undocumented charges under its contract to supply troops in Iraq, as documented by the Pentagon’s own auditors. More…



2) Parsons billed taxpayers over $200 million under a contract to build 142 health clinics, yet completed fewer than 20. According to Iraqi officials, the rest were “imaginary clinics.” More…



3) Custer Battles stole forklifts from Iraq’s national airline, repainted them, then leased the forklifts back to the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) through a Cayman Islands shell company — charging an extra fee along the way. More…



4) Halliburton allowed our troops in Iraq to shower, bathe, and sometimes brush their teeth with water that tested positive for e. coli and coliform bacteria. One expert has said that the troops would have been better off using the highly polluted Euphrates River. Halliburton has admitted that it lacked “an organizational structure to ensure that water was being treated in accordance with Army standards and its contractual requirements.” More…



5) Halliburton served the troops food that had spoiled or passed its expiration date. Halliburton managers ordered employees to remove bullets from food in trucks that had come under attack, then saved the bullets as souvenirs while giving the food to unwitting soldiers and Marines. More…



6) Halliburton charged taxpayers for services that it never provided and tens of thousands of meals that it never served. More…



7) Halliburton double-charged taxpayers for $617,000 worth of soda. More…



8) Halliburton tripled the cost of hand towels, at taxpayer expense, by insisting on having its own embroidered logo on each towel. More…



9) Halliburton employees burned new trucks on the side of the road because they didn’t have the right wrench to change a tire — and knew that the trucks could be replaced on a profitable “cost-plus” basis, at taxpayer expense. More…



10) Halliburton employees dumped 50,000 pounds of nails in the desert because they ordered the wrong size, all at taxpayer expense. More…



11) Halliburton employees threw themselves a lavish Super Bowl Party, but passed the cost on to taxpayers by claiming they had purchased supplies for the troops. More…



12) Halliburton chose a subcontractor to build an ice factory in the desert even though its bid was 800 percent higher than an equally qualified bidder. More…



13) Halliburton actively discouraged cooperation with U.S. government auditors, sent one whistleblower into a combat zone to keep him away from auditors, and put another whistleblower under armed guard before kicking her out of the country. More…



14) Halliburton sent unarmed truck drivers into a known combat zone without warning them of the danger, resulting in the deaths of six truck drivers and two soldiers. Halliburton then offered to nominate the surviving truck drivers for a Defense Department medal — provided they sign a medical records release that doubled as a waiver of any right to seek legal recourse against the company. More…



15) Halliburton’s no-bid contract to rebuild Iraq’s oil infrastructure was the worst case of contract abuse that the top civilian at the Army Corps of Engineers had ever seen. She was demoted after speaking out. More…



16) Under its no-bid contract to rebuild Iraq’s oil infrastructure contract, Halliburton overcharged by over 600 percent for the delivery of fuel from Kuwait. More…



17) Halliburton failed to complete required work under its oil infrastructure work, leaving distribution points unusable. More…



18) Iraq under the CPA was like the “Wild West,” with few limits and controls over how inexperienced officials spent — and wasted — millions of taxpayer dollars. More…



19) Cronies at the CPA’s health office lacked experience, ignored the advice of international health professionals, failed to restore Iraq’s health systems, and wasted millions of taxpayer dollars. The political appointee who ran the office had never worked overseas and had no international public health experience. More…



20) Administration officials promoted construction of a “boondoggle” children’s hospital in Basra, which ended up more than a year behind schedule and at least 100 percent over budget. More…

[mnealtx 0]

Sorry...I'm not the one with the constant whining drone of "It's all Bush's/Cheney's/Halliburton's fault."

Have some cheese.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Amazon 7]

So all the stuff that is posted about them.. is jsut all wrong.... MMMMKKK got it... talk about a terminal case of KBAS

[TankBuster 0]

Well, like Mike said, you missed the point. (But I won't stoop to calling you stupid) The voting class of Republicans didn't vote themselves favors. The politicians do serve themselves, some more than others. I don't think the Washington Post or 60 Minutes are bastions of the truth, but you can have the point, I'm not privvy to all those documents or backroom deals. I hope you realize that Democrats are no more scrupulous. What you did do, (and I thank you from the bottom of my heart) is prove my point. The Federal Government is terribly ineffecient at spending your money. With no concern for the bottom line, they spend all they get and want more. The free market exists to bring goods and services to you and I. Goods and services that improve our lives and those of our families. We can choose to buy if we want, or pass if we see a better deal somewhere else. With government in charge of healthcare you'll just be pissed because Halliburton will get part of the contract. By the way, anyone know where HAL closed today?

The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

[Amazon 7]

It was not the government.. it was a small subset called the rePUBICan Administration that has managed to bend the American people over and butt fuck most of them to the tune of...... gee what is the deficit again????. Their good ole buddies were complicit in it.. and wanna bet that those who recieved all that government largesse... sure as hell aint libertarians....although some of them do like to masquerade as libertarians when it suits them

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Nuclear weapons are an outdated dinosaur in military strategy. They were used twice, in one war, 60 years ago. Even the threat of an nuclear war (the cold war) ended 20 years ago. The only reason the United States built nuclear weapons is to deter other superpowers who have a lot of them, and the other superpowers are smart enough to not use them. So it makes sense for the superpowers to all agree not to have them, and verify with each other that there's no programs going on. We all realized a long time ago that nukes don't make sense because there's no real defense, and there's nothing left to take over once you've used them. Does it make sense for China, Russia, France and the US to all nuke each other? It doesn't.

It doesn't make sense to use them, but the history of the latter half of the 20th compared to the first half makes their value abundantly clear. As bad as the more recent conflicts have been, most have deaths in the 10s or 100s of thousands, not tens of millions. Reagan's mantra, peace through strength, showed its truth.

You can never guarantee against cheating - the only guarantee is maintaining the credible counterforce. That doesn't mean thousands or the > 10000 arsenal the US used to have, but it does mean a couple trident based subs, two distinct wings of B2s (or other choice), and two sites of ICBMs. Figure 200 nukes? 100 is more than enough on the offensive side, but you need diversification to prevent the risk of a first strike by the other side.

Quote

What are we going to do in the unlikely event that a terrorist can actually detonate one? Are we going to nuke the entire country the terrorist was born in? Or how about the one that we think they are in now? Maybe we should nuke the country that we think they built it in? Can we even find the terrorist to nuke them? We haven't even found Osama Bin Laden yet - nearly seven years after 9/11. So how does it help against terrorism for the US to have nukes? It doesn't.

We well might respond with nuclear weapons to an attack by a Bin Laden type. And if so, we don't have to find him, just narrow it down. The threat is a credible one that have value. Why did Hussein launch Scuds loaded with conventional weapons rather than the chemical arms he threatened? Because the Israelis would have made Bagdad glow in the night.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

It was not the government.. it was a small subset called the rePUBICan Administration that has managed to bend the American people over and butt fuck most of them to the tune of...... gee what is the deficit again????. Their good ole buddies were complicit in it.. and wanna bet that those who recieved all that government largesse... sure as hell aint libertarians....although some of them do like to masquerade as libertarians when it suits them

So where's the impeachments, with all that 'proof' you have of malfeasance?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[riddler 0]

Quote

Reagan's mantra, peace through strength, showed its truth.

I see - the Berlin wall fell because of our superior nuclear strength? Thanks for the history lesson, but I think it was economics that did that. Even if we didn't have nukes in the cold war, what would've happened? The Soviet Union would've said "well, communism failed economically, so let's just nuke the US out of spite?"

Quote

We well might respond with nuclear weapons to an attack by a Bin Laden type. And if so, we don't have to find him, just narrow it down.

Narrow it down to what? The entire middle east? Do we even know he's there? How does killing an entire continent or nation or city keep Bin Laden from terrorist acts? It doesn't. It just kills a whole bunch of people that share his geography of birth.

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[billvon 3,008]

>Promote != Provide. An important difference.

Agreed. One of Congress's mandates is to promote the general welfare of the people of the US. The decision on how to do that is up to our representatives.

[tkhayes 348]

anyway, we obviously disagree for sure.

I never said - "Corporations should not make a profit"

I never said - "Put a gun in someone's hand to make them pay for my/your health care"

I never said "skydives and repacks should be free."

It's pretty funny how the arguments are simply (again) naysaying and twisting of what I said.

I said "Healthcare is a right" My belief. Paying for it en masse is far cheaper and more efficient than paying for it individually. 40 people on a bus is cheaper than 40 people driving cars.

The proof? We already pay more per capita than anyone else for healthcare, yet many do not have it. You ARE already paying for those no-good couch-potato inner-city lazy no-goods......

because when they go to the hospital emergency room, it eventually filters down to YOUR insurance payment (and mine).

now come up with an alternative or please stop twisting my words. I have been pretty clear and concise.

for a 'man of God' as you claim to be, I am surprised you care so little about your fellow man. Especially your fellow 'American'. What does your church teach you, pray tell?

and promote/provide - that is an interpretation that someday the Supreme Court will make I expect on this very issue.

and if the best way to vote is with my dollars - then you have just demonstrated the very flaw I have pointed out earlier in this American system. The Constitution does not talk about $$......

[kallend 2,030]

Quote

The voting class of Republicans didn't vote themselves favors.

I thought they voted for those promising tax cuts.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[TankBuster 0]

So, the gov is doing me a favor by allowing me to keep my own money?

The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

don't be absurd. never said anything about million dollar paychecks.... - I have been very specific, food, healthcare, education, - fundamental rights.

by PROVIDING any of these (when needed, not all the time), it would be hard to call it interference. And if it is what the people decide they want - then it is not even a burden to society because society decided that it wants these fundamental rights.

still looking for your plan....
'bull', comments about 'great logic' etc, simple naysaying - but you agree with me that the system is broken...... so your take on it would be?.......

you already subscribe to the 'socialized military', the 'socialized public education system', the socialized public library', you liberal you....... ;)

The "system" is broke, in part, BECAUSE of State and Fed government involement, not in spite of it.

State requirement vary greatly..Some force plastic surgery inclusion and abortion to name a couple. Because of this they, the States, use these requiremnt to limit which insurance companies can do business in a given State, This simple fact here greatly reduces market forces on insurance companies. Add to this the fact states force (in some cases) elective type coverage on hospitals and Dr's (so they feel good I guess)

Is this all the problem? Hardly, but it is part of it. A big part of it

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,008]

> So, the gov is doing me a favor by allowing me to keep my own money?

No, the government is doing you a favor by paying for your favorite massive governmental programs and taxing someone else for it (either a different income bracket or your kids.)

[Amazon 7]

Quote

So where's the impeachments, with all that 'proof' you have of malfeasance?

BECAUSE.. Mike so far the Democrats... those who you revile so heartily have been smarter than you rePUBICans..... you know....the ones who brought the business of government to a standstill over a fucking blow job.

Personally I would want them turned over to the World Court for their WAR CRIMES... they are the ones who took us off to this exercise in arrogance and incompetence that has caused so many unneccessary deaths.

[riddler 0]

Quote

So, the gov is doing me a favor by allowing me to keep my own money?

Speaking of this, I just got a letter saying my economic stimulus check is still at least another week away. It's nice of the gov to let me have some of my money back, so I'm not too mad that they are taking their sweet time doing it.

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[TankBuster 0]

Quote

I never said - "Corporations should not make a profit"
I never said - "Put a gun in someone's hand to make them pay for my/your health care"
I never said "skydives and repacks should be free."
It's pretty funny how the arguments are simply (again) naysaying and twisting of what I said.

No, I was just asking questions. Similar to the questions the hospitals, doctors, MRI centers etc., will be asking under your system. You know, the one where profit is not the main motivation, but "healthcare" is. The medical industry is no different than any other. Once the feds begin to control prices and ration care they'll lose the incentive to be better than anyone else. Gifted people won't become doctors, investment in new medical technology will decrease. These lessons have been learned in UK and Canada. Yes, more people have access, but the quality and availability is less for all. It is a socialist sham.

If I make a good living and I'm happy with my home, my income, and the current tax structure (not true, but let's assume) and the feds create the US Health Care Fund (much like the way SS started) and they force me to pay into it, then yes, you are forcing me at gunpoint to pay fo yo broke leg. If I don't pay in, guess who shows up at my door, and guess what they have on their hip. Now- if you make the program totally voluntary you have my support.

Quote

for a 'man of God' as you claim to be, I am surprised you care so little about your fellow man. Especially your fellow 'American'. What does your church teach you, pray tell?

This is an argument the left brings up consistently. Here's my take - and I've already alluded to it in another post. Christ tells us to feed the poor and clothe the naked. I'll expand that to "help those who need help, even if it means a surgery." Observing how the government "helps" people and squanders huge chunks of money, I'll do everything I can to keep them out of the charity business. I believe it is much more effective on the local level, when we get to make the decisions on who needs help and how much. Considering the shape of Social Security, the deficit, the pork barrel spending, I am surprised that you care so little about your fellow man that you would put these idiots in charge of their (and your) healthcare. I would rather make my own decisions.

Quote

and promote/provide - that is an interpretation that someday the Supreme Court will make I expect on this very issue

They'll never rule that it is the duty of the government to provide for everyone. It's ludicrous. People are by nature capitalists. Even those who think they are not.

Quote

and if the best way to vote is with my dollars - then you have just demonstrated the very flaw I have pointed out earlier in this American system. The Constitution does not talk about $$......

Actually, it does, but that wasn't my point. I was talking about making informed decisions on which healthcare providers to use - and spending your dollars there.

I have proposed a solution. Get the government the hell out of everything. Except defense and the judiciary system. Lets privatize everything else, rely on ourselves and the rule of law.

That's about all I have. I would love to debate this more, but I have a company to run. I don't think we'll ever convince one another of the others point but, to quote Gen. George S Patton. "...now you wonderful sons o bitches, you know how I feel."

The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.