Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#21
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Jan 22, 10:01*am, wrote:
On Jan 22, 9:22*am, wrote: On Jan 22, 9:02*am, wrote: On Jan 21, 11:48*pm, wrote: On Jan 21, 11:46*pm, jps wrote: On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 19:07:59 -0500, RLM wrote: On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 01:08:43 -0500, Eisboch wrote: "jps" wrote in message . .. How you could possibly think of Bush as someone to look up to is certainly beyond me. *You have to be living in a special reality, like he did. I would offer this: One thing that occurred to me today while watching all the inauguration activities was that it would have been a perfect day and timing for a terrorist attack. *Virtually everybody who would have a responsibility to respond were tied up in activities. *It would be chaotic. I think thanks can be given for the fact that it didn't occur to the departed cowboy from Texas. Eisboch Bush tranported the victims to them to save them fuel. Good point. *He also transported pallets of $100 bills. *My nephew said they didn't count it when handing it out, they weighed it. Those were my hard earned tax dollars at work. *Buying Iraqi cooperation or refunding them for the value of their family member's lives. Let's not forget how much fuel we've purchased over their to keep those humvess and transports on the road. *I'm sure Halliburton made a pretty penny off each litre. *I'm sure a percentage of our fuel purchases went to fund terrorism, the mid-eastern version of *unicef or Ronald McDonald house. jps- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Yeah, "you're sure".. * right snerk Find out why we used Haliburton, find out why Clinton used them too, exclusively, then come back and talk..- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Scotty, Clinton used them because they were already there. Makes sense.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - He used them for the same reason Bush did. They are the only company in the world that does what they do under fire. From bricks to college degrees to retail operations, they are the only company that can provide infrastructure for a working civilization from top to bottom...- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Nope. They weren't already deployed when Bush/Cheney hired them. In Clinton's case, they were already there. And your last statement is not true, either.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Well, enlighten me, what other compay can provide those kind of services under fire? There is not really anybody else that I know of that can do that like I said, from infrastructure, to books, to hospitals, to welfare, to bullets.... All in one package.. |
#22
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Jan 22, 10:22*am, wrote:
On Jan 22, 10:01*am, wrote: On Jan 22, 9:22*am, wrote: On Jan 22, 9:02*am, wrote: On Jan 21, 11:48*pm, wrote: On Jan 21, 11:46*pm, jps wrote: On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 19:07:59 -0500, RLM wrote: On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 01:08:43 -0500, Eisboch wrote: "jps" wrote in message . .. How you could possibly think of Bush as someone to look up to is certainly beyond me. *You have to be living in a special reality, like he did. I would offer this: One thing that occurred to me today while watching all the inauguration activities was that it would have been a perfect day and timing for a terrorist attack. *Virtually everybody who would have a responsibility to respond were tied up in activities. *It would be chaotic. I think thanks can be given for the fact that it didn't occur to the departed cowboy from Texas. Eisboch Bush tranported the victims to them to save them fuel. Good point. *He also transported pallets of $100 bills. *My nephew said they didn't count it when handing it out, they weighed it. Those were my hard earned tax dollars at work. *Buying Iraqi cooperation or refunding them for the value of their family member's lives. Let's not forget how much fuel we've purchased over their to keep those humvess and transports on the road. *I'm sure Halliburton made a pretty penny off each litre. *I'm sure a percentage of our fuel purchases went to fund terrorism, the mid-eastern version of *unicef or Ronald McDonald house. jps- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Yeah, "you're sure".. * right snerk Find out why we used Haliburton, find out why Clinton used them too, exclusively, then come back and talk..- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Scotty, Clinton used them because they were already there. Makes sense.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - He used them for the same reason Bush did. They are the only company in the world that does what they do under fire. From bricks to college degrees to retail operations, they are the only company that can provide infrastructure for a working civilization from top to bottom...- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Nope. They weren't already deployed when Bush/Cheney hired them. In Clinton's case, they were already there. And your last statement is not true, either.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Well, enlighten me, what other compay can provide those kind of services under fire? There is not really anybody else that I know of that can do that like I said, from infrastructure, to books, to hospitals, to welfare, to bullets.... All in one package..- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - There's several tens of defense contractors that do the same exact thing as Halliburton. There are some in Iraq as we speak. Halliburton, in it's own vision statement says it provides energy services, energy equipment, engineering, construction, and maintenance. Period. "Today's decision by the Army means the LogCap contract will be split- up into three companies, reports the Post, with a fourth firm hired to help monitor the performance of the other three. Halliburton will be permitted to rebid on some of the new work. But last year, the company's CEO, David Lesar, said: "If we do choose to rebid, we're going to jack the margins up significantly," a threat that could prove costly to taxpayers if Halliburton is allowed back into any LogCap work." Four companies?!!! |
#23
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]() wrote in message ... On Jan 22, 10:22 am, wrote: On Jan 22, 10:01 am, wrote: On Jan 22, 9:22 am, wrote: On Jan 22, 9:02 am, wrote: On Jan 21, 11:48 pm, wrote: On Jan 21, 11:46 pm, jps wrote: On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 19:07:59 -0500, RLM wrote: On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 01:08:43 -0500, Eisboch wrote: "jps" wrote in message . .. How you could possibly think of Bush as someone to look up to is certainly beyond me. You have to be living in a special reality, like he did. I would offer this: One thing that occurred to me today while watching all the inauguration activities was that it would have been a perfect day and timing for a terrorist attack. Virtually everybody who would have a responsibility to respond were tied up in activities. It would be chaotic. I think thanks can be given for the fact that it didn't occur to the departed cowboy from Texas. Eisboch Bush tranported the victims to them to save them fuel. Good point. He also transported pallets of $100 bills. My nephew said they didn't count it when handing it out, they weighed it. Those were my hard earned tax dollars at work. Buying Iraqi cooperation or refunding them for the value of their family member's lives. Let's not forget how much fuel we've purchased over their to keep those humvess and transports on the road. I'm sure Halliburton made a pretty penny off each litre. I'm sure a percentage of our fuel purchases went to fund terrorism, the mid-eastern version of unicef or Ronald McDonald house. jps- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Yeah, "you're sure".. right snerk Find out why we used Haliburton, find out why Clinton used them too, exclusively, then come back and talk..- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Scotty, Clinton used them because they were already there. Makes sense.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - He used them for the same reason Bush did. They are the only company in the world that does what they do under fire. From bricks to college degrees to retail operations, they are the only company that can provide infrastructure for a working civilization from top to bottom...- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Nope. They weren't already deployed when Bush/Cheney hired them. In Clinton's case, they were already there. And your last statement is not true, either.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Well, enlighten me, what other compay can provide those kind of services under fire? There is not really anybody else that I know of that can do that like I said, from infrastructure, to books, to hospitals, to welfare, to bullets.... All in one package..- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - There's several tens of defense contractors that do the same exact thing as Halliburton. There are some in Iraq as we speak. Halliburton, in it's own vision statement says it provides energy services, energy equipment, engineering, construction, and maintenance. Period. "Today's decision by the Army means the LogCap contract will be split- up into three companies, reports the Post, with a fourth firm hired to help monitor the performance of the other three. Halliburton will be permitted to rebid on some of the new work. But last year, the company's CEO, David Lesar, said: "If we do choose to rebid, we're going to jack the margins up significantly," a threat that could prove costly to taxpayers if Halliburton is allowed back into any LogCap work." Four companies?!!! Halliburton had built most of the stuff there. So they had the plans as well as the expertise. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|