Kerry Nails Another One!!
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,867
Likes: 0
From: NH
Originally posted by loudist
spert, the operative words in my post were 'Its all about how the numbers are generated.'
You see, my friend, the numbers are generated by how many people apply for and who is receiving unemployment. When unemployment runs out, then they aren't counted but they are still out of work. Its about how the numbers are generated.
spert, the operative words in my post were 'Its all about how the numbers are generated.'
You see, my friend, the numbers are generated by how many people apply for and who is receiving unemployment. When unemployment runs out, then they aren't counted but they are still out of work. Its about how the numbers are generated.
Therefore Clinton still had 20% higher unemployment then does Bush at this time…
Originally posted by loudist
KERRY: "Now, I voted the way I voted because I saw that he had the policy wrong and I wanted accountability. I didn't want to give a slush fund to Halliburton.
And guess what, thats exactly what happened.
He was for funding the troops (I voted for it) but saw that the management of the money was never implemented into the bill (then I voted against it).
For all of you crying about being overtaxed, the inconsistency of fiscal responsability in your posts seem like flip flopping on a grand scale.
If that bill didn't pass then the controls would have been added to it, and quickly.
shrub and cheatey had it drafted so the companies would benefit.
Now there are missing billions, under equipted troops, living in cement like dust, while Halliburton and it subsiderary companies are overcharging us while living the life of Riley in Iraq.
KERRY: "Now, I voted the way I voted because I saw that he had the policy wrong and I wanted accountability. I didn't want to give a slush fund to Halliburton.
And guess what, thats exactly what happened.
He was for funding the troops (I voted for it) but saw that the management of the money was never implemented into the bill (then I voted against it).
For all of you crying about being overtaxed, the inconsistency of fiscal responsability in your posts seem like flip flopping on a grand scale.
If that bill didn't pass then the controls would have been added to it, and quickly.
shrub and cheatey had it drafted so the companies would benefit.
Now there are missing billions, under equipted troops, living in cement like dust, while Halliburton and it subsiderary companies are overcharging us while living the life of Riley in Iraq.
You liberals love to do that, whine about something but then NEVER provide a solution except to say you could do it better or you have a plan…
In the end Kerry did NOT vote to support the troops, he cast a vote that SCREWED the troops. He hasn't changed in over 20 years about how he feels about these troops. He loves to send them in and then leave them and forget them.
He is a sad timid little follower...
Originally posted by loudist
Look at the price of gasoline here at home. On average its 60 cents more than a year ago. The cost of crude is at record highs.
Its being manipulated in concert with the Saudies to ding us here as well as the rest of the world.
Who is benefiting from this high price, not me or you, but the already rich oil concerns.
This is what shrub has encouraged that directly affects everyone yet you still believe hes a conservative?
Look at the price of gasoline here at home. On average its 60 cents more than a year ago. The cost of crude is at record highs.
Its being manipulated in concert with the Saudies to ding us here as well as the rest of the world.
Who is benefiting from this high price, not me or you, but the already rich oil concerns.
This is what shrub has encouraged that directly affects everyone yet you still believe hes a conservative?
We are NOT the only country that uses oil or imports oil. The world economy is doing well and specifically China is doing extremely well. China’s economy is growing at about 8% - 10% a year China, already a net oil importer, is growing increasingly dependent on imported oil. Last year, its auto sales grew 70% and its oil imports were up 30% from the previous year, making it the world's No. 2 petroleum user after the U.S. By 2030, China is expected to have more cars than the U.S. and import as much oil as the U.S. does today.
Of course there are other things that cause the price of crude to go up but growing world demand is the biggest. I love how you people think Bush is just so got damn stupid he can’t tie his own shoe but somehow smart enough to keep a conspiracy this large (making money from oil for him and his buddies) under wraps.
By the way I would say enjoy the LOW prices of gas now because with the economy growing and China growing like wildfire the price of crude will continue to go UP...
You all need to back up, take a breath, do some research and try to gain “some” creditability back because you have lost it all…
Originally posted by loudist
History has shown that when we were at war the economy thrived, not this time. The game has changed so much by the big companies that the money doesn't find its way to common working folks the way it used to.
The spoils of this war are going to the cronies of shrub and cheatey, that has certainly been shown, and if shrub is reelected, he will go on a full out rape of this country as he is a lame duck and cheaty has no desires for the presidency.
It will be even more of a fiscal, domestic, personal rights bloodbath than it is right now.
History has shown that when we were at war the economy thrived, not this time. The game has changed so much by the big companies that the money doesn't find its way to common working folks the way it used to.
The spoils of this war are going to the cronies of shrub and cheatey, that has certainly been shown, and if shrub is reelected, he will go on a full out rape of this country as he is a lame duck and cheaty has no desires for the presidency.
It will be even more of a fiscal, domestic, personal rights bloodbath than it is right now.
Member
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
From: Future Son in Law of Spork
Therefore Clinton still had 20% higher unemployment then does Bush at this time…
You all like to spew BS about Halliburton so who could take their place at the same or lower cost?
Bechtel Group
Bechtel Group is awarded a contract worth $680 million; the firm is given the job of emergency infrastructure repair and rehabilitation. It is required to assess and repair power generation facilities, electrical grids, municipal water systems and sewage systems. The deal includes a provision for the rehabilitation or repair of airport facilities, and the dredging, repair and upgrading of the southern Iraqi port city of Umm Qasr.
Among Bechtel's directors is George Shultz, President Reagan's secretary of State.
Bechtel had previously given $1.3 million to US political candidates from 1999 to 2002, 59% of it to Republicans, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
It is reported that Bechtel had had ties with Usama bin Laden’s family. Bin Laden’s family members had invested $10 million in an equity fund run by a former subsidiary of Bechtel.
Halliburton Co.
Halliburton Co., run by US Vice President **** Cheney from 1995 to 2000, is granted a contract that encompasses the operation of Iraqi oil fields.
Halliburton is under fire over accusations that its White House ties helped it win a major Iraqi oil contract.
The oil services giant admitted Friday, May 9, that it paid 2.4 million dollars in bribes to get favorable tax treatment in Nigeria.
The Center for Responsive Politics recalls that Halliburton had poured 17, 6 million dollars into Bush's 2000 presidential campaign.
Halliburton is accused of having done business in Iran, Iraq and Libya despite US embargoes.
And
Military Ending Halliburton Iraq Oil Deal
Grok Headline matches for Military Ending Halliburton Iraq Oil Deal
US army 'to axe Halliburton deal'
From:
US army 'to axe Halliburton deal' 09/07/2004 08:32 AM
The Pentagon is to end the contract Halliburton has to service US troops in Iraq, the Wall Street Journal reports.
U.S. Replaces Halliburton Iraqi Fuel Contracts (Reuters)
From:
U.S. Replaces Halliburton Iraqi Fuel Contracts (Reuters) 03/08/2004 10:10 PM
Reuters - The U.S. military said on Monday it had awarded seven new contracts to deliver fuel to northern Iraq, replacing much-criticized work done by Vice President **** Cheney's old firm Halliburton .
Cheney Office 'Coordinated' Halliburton Deal -Time (Reuters)
From:
Cheney Office 'Coordinated' Halliburton Deal -Time (Reuters) 05/30/2004 07:12 PM
Reuters - A Pentagon e-mail said Vice President **** Cheney's office "coordinated" a multibillion-dollar Iraq reconstruction contract awarded to his former employer Halliburton, Time magazine reported on Sunday.
the sainted Halliburton corporation overcharged the government by over $60,000,000 for the provision of gasoline for use in Iraq
That is only what is known so far.
2 minutes google. Its not that difficult.
Maybe it time to pack your bags for a stay with the deprogrammers.
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 487
Likes: 0
From: Oklahoma
Even if Halliburton were profiteering in Iraq, which I doubt, Can you really put a price on performing the services they do with bullets from insurgances flying over your head. It's time to give a longtime,Well Respected company the credit they deserve, instead of making them a whipping post for some thug reporter or trial lawyer. Or worse some anti-American Senator and his running mate bringing it up every time they make a public appearance.
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 4,121
Likes: 0
From: Hammer Lane
OKay, for all the people who haven't been able to see the truth about the Cheney/Halliburton connection, read it and think.
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx@DocID=261.html
I can't believe that anyone would expect a company, Halliburton or any other, to go into a war zone and not charge extra for the increased danger involved in providing the services they provide. Never mind the extra cost for the supply logistical nightmares that are involved. How much of the supplies and materials they need to perform their tasks are produced in country? Or the region, for that matter?
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx@DocID=261.html
I can't believe that anyone would expect a company, Halliburton or any other, to go into a war zone and not charge extra for the increased danger involved in providing the services they provide. Never mind the extra cost for the supply logistical nightmares that are involved. How much of the supplies and materials they need to perform their tasks are produced in country? Or the region, for that matter?
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,867
Likes: 0
From: NH
Originally posted by loudist
As said before just last week, percentages are a STATISTICAL relationship to actual numbers. What are the actual numbers in people?
As said before just last week, percentages are a STATISTICAL relationship to actual numbers. What are the actual numbers in people?
READ:
If the methods used to determine the unemployment rate remained the same for Bush as they were for Clinton it gives you the same conclusions. That conclusion is Clinton had 20% higher unemployment rate in a booming economy not touched by mass slaughtering of innocent men, women, and children, nor did Clinton have an economy in recession like he handed to Bush.
Your boy had HIGHER unemployment rates then Bush does now. It’s the truth, no matter how much that hurts your liberal feelings it is the truth, it is the FACTS.
Grow up son, the truth will set you free, spread your wings and research…
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,406
Likes: 0
From: Poway, SoCal
Bush or Kerry
I watched both Presidential debates, and having been an avid debater myself, I saw the eloquence of Kerry's speech. Yes Bush is ruff around the edges, but he has a sincerity deep within him that I think Kerry lack. Bush has a leader’s spirit in him and stands strong when strength is what is needed. Kerry definitely has skill as a speaker and shows good judgement on occasion (namely when he has agreed with Bush), but has also shown a weakness. A weakness of trying to be a leader of what is popular. I also don’t agree with what he did when he went and visited with America’s enemies when we were still at war. This was a deep betrayal unbefitting of a leader. Kerry is a man who has shown little devotion to being a man of character and worse yet, is willing to use this as a leader of our country.
Now I believe an aggressive stance towards terrorist is the only choice. It is the only language they speak and any weakness (READ: backing out) would be seen by them as another chance to attack. The U.S., sadly, knows only too well their willingness to attack. Even though some wrong choices might have been made in our reason for going to war, I feel it was necessary for the removal of a dictator who was only too willing to assail and destroy his own people. Although the weapons of mass destruction haven’t been found, I feel that they existed and still do, most likely in the hands of some other enemy; possibly Syria (most likely France!).
President Bush is a leader of post 9/11, but I am sure Kerry would make a great leader for 9/10. It is important to finish what we have started, to remain strong and to help give the world the greatest possible chance to enjoy the freedom that WE have.
~Colby
Now I believe an aggressive stance towards terrorist is the only choice. It is the only language they speak and any weakness (READ: backing out) would be seen by them as another chance to attack. The U.S., sadly, knows only too well their willingness to attack. Even though some wrong choices might have been made in our reason for going to war, I feel it was necessary for the removal of a dictator who was only too willing to assail and destroy his own people. Although the weapons of mass destruction haven’t been found, I feel that they existed and still do, most likely in the hands of some other enemy; possibly Syria (most likely France!).
President Bush is a leader of post 9/11, but I am sure Kerry would make a great leader for 9/10. It is important to finish what we have started, to remain strong and to help give the world the greatest possible chance to enjoy the freedom that WE have.
~Colby
Member
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
From: Future Son in Law of Spork
Spurt, are you so nieve to believe that if a former CEO of a company helps that company get a fat contract that there isn't some form of kickback somehow someway?
I was born at night, just not last night.
You are giddy over a statistic. How refreshing.
You exacty embody the quote 'lies, damn lies, then statistics' as you make hysterical claims based on percentages.
You incorrectly say that Clinton had 20% higher unemployment rate. That is untrue, or don't you know the difference?
The numbers tell the tale, not the percentages.
Your brand of truth... I'm not buying.
Yea, that stance has really worked out for Israel and Palestine.
I guess millions slaughtered in Rouanda didn't meet your qualification, possibly because they didn't have something we wanted...
Did EnglishMadam say something?
I was born at night, just not last night.
You are giddy over a statistic. How refreshing.
You exacty embody the quote 'lies, damn lies, then statistics' as you make hysterical claims based on percentages.
You incorrectly say that Clinton had 20% higher unemployment rate. That is untrue, or don't you know the difference?
The numbers tell the tale, not the percentages.
Your brand of truth... I'm not buying.
Now I believe an aggressive stance towards terrorist is the only choice. It is the only language they speak and any weakness (READ: backing out) would be seen by them as another chance to attack. The U.S., sadly, knows only too well their willingness to attack.
Even though some wrong choices might have been made in our reason for going to war, I feel it was necessary for the removal of a dictator who was only too willing to assail and destroy his own people.
Did EnglishMadam say something?
Member
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
From: Future Son in Law of Spork
Originally posted by Frank S
True. But you must admit no other President had to deal with a little terrorist attack that destroyed the World Trade Center. They have estimated that cost the US economy AT LEAST 1.1 million jobs. IF you are a thinking person, you know that accusing Bush of job losses beyond that are not reasonable.
But then again lets not cloud the air with facts, it's too much trouble.
True. But you must admit no other President had to deal with a little terrorist attack that destroyed the World Trade Center. They have estimated that cost the US economy AT LEAST 1.1 million jobs. IF you are a thinking person, you know that accusing Bush of job losses beyond that are not reasonable.
But then again lets not cloud the air with facts, it's too much trouble.
No other attacks?
Has history been rewritten?
Member
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
From: Future Son in Law of Spork
Originally posted by screwyou
loudist,
School is in session. Take a seat, remove your notebook and pen, listen up, take notes, and LEARN.
loudist,
School is in session. Take a seat, remove your notebook and pen, listen up, take notes, and LEARN.
No thanks.