Post by: xmedia2004 on September 15, 2005, 08:23:00 PM
Man I should have seen it coming Bechtel has been awarded the first in several
fed. contracts in La rebuilding. I wish I would have seen the entire Bush address
on TV but 9/11 report was on history channel, and still learned a few things about
the attacks.
Any opinions Bush looking out for his "boys"?
Would you be pissed that your local firm didnt win fed lottery?
Post by: pepsik on September 16, 2005, 10:35:00 AM
This is the third controversial contract to go to Haliburton. First Afghanistan, then Iraq. It's not surprising for them to get La too. Dick Cheney will be making a big profit this year on Halliburton stock, but then again since taking office when hasn't he?
Post by: reidtheweed03 on September 16, 2005, 01:39:00 PM
Post by: xmedia2004 on September 16, 2005, 02:53:00 PM
QUOTE(reidtheweed03 @ Sep 16 2005, 09:50 PM)
then again maybe its just a good company, go ahead and name me a better company, before you start bitching about something why dont you look at what your bitching about.
-
Title: Is There Any Doubt
Post by: pug_ster on September 16, 2005, 04:24:00 PM
-
Halliburton always stand to profit after every war or disaster. And Bush said that there won't be any new taxes for the recovery effort in La. I don't how will Bush will pull $200billion out from his hat since most federal programs already slashed enough...
I have to say that his speech last night was mostly BS thought it sounds very nice...
-
Title: Is There Any Doubt
Post by: pug_ster on September 17, 2005, 09:16:00 AM
-
Post by: pug_ster on September 16, 2005, 04:24:00 PM
I have to say that his speech last night was mostly BS thought it sounds very nice...
Post by: pug_ster on September 17, 2005, 09:16:00 AM
QUOTE(puckSR @ Sep 17 2005, 11:58 AM)
I love this
-
Title: Is There Any Doubt
Post by: LANDON14 on September 17, 2005, 09:34:00 AM
-
My god, what dont you wacko's understand about Haliburton being the only American company that do what they do?? What...do you want us to outsource to another nation? How will that help our economy? Best to keep the money here at home dont 'cha think? Not to mention that Cheney sold all of his stock in the company when he agreed to run with Bush for VP because he knew the kind of flack he would get from dumb asses like yourselves....so no, he doesnt get any profit from Haliburtons contract. Like puckSR said, just stick to your gaming unless you have something intelligent to say....Nimrod's!
-
Title: Is There Any Doubt
Post by: damam on September 17, 2005, 12:57:00 PM
-
when Clinton was in office he did not even bid it out - he simply awarded it to haliburton. How come there was no outrage then? Atleast now their is a public bidding process that anyone can scrutinize. The interesting part is that you never hear about that. And why not? The records are publicly available. If you want us to buy into this dig a little bit past "chenney - halliburton" and provide us with some real evidence that the bid was not competitive compared to other qualified candidates. Otherwise get some business experience and see how it all really works, and understand that so long as the bid was good and they deliver within reason I dont care.
that was great
-
Title: Is There Any Doubt
Post by: LANDON14 on September 17, 2005, 04:44:00 PM
-
Post by: LANDON14 on September 17, 2005, 09:34:00 AM
Post by: damam on September 17, 2005, 12:57:00 PM
QUOTE(puckSR)
Yeah, your probably right about halliburton being the main profiting company, too bad they dont hire workers to do it for them, and istead employ magic economic non-entity elves to do their work.
that was great
Post by: LANDON14 on September 17, 2005, 04:44:00 PM
QUOTE(damam @ Sep 17 2005, 03:08 PM)
when Clinton was in office he did not even bid it out - he simply awarded it to haliburton. How come there was no outrage then? Atleast now their is a public bidding process that anyone can scrutinize. The interesting part is that you never hear about that. And why not? The records are publicly available. If you want us to buy into this dig a little bit past "chenney - halliburton" and provide us with some real evidence that the bid was not competitive compared to other qualified candidates. Otherwise get some business experience and see how it all really works, and understand that so long as the bid was good and they deliver within reason I dont care.
-
Title: Is There Any Doubt
Post by: xmedia2004 on September 18, 2005, 12:24:00 AM
-
Durr Heavy Construction, LLC
817 Hickory Avenue
Harahan, LA 70123
Richlyn Construction, Inc.
21449-8 Marion Lane
Mandeville, LA 70471
985-871-8990
LAGC HEADQUARTERS
666 North Street
Baton Rouge, LA 70802
PH 225-344-0432
To name a few of top 100 US consturuction firms that happen to be in La.
-
Title: Is There Any Doubt
Post by: xmedia2004 on September 18, 2005, 12:47:00 AM
-
The Source
(reconstruction contracts) Campaign contributions
Kellogg Brown & Root (Halliburton) ($2,329,040,891) $2,379,792
Bechtel Group Inc. (1,029,833,000) 3,310,102
International American Products Inc. (526,805, 651) 2,500
Perini Corp. (525,000,000) 119,000
Contrack International Inc. (500,000,000) 2,000
Fluor Corp. (500,000,000) 3,624,173
Washington Group International (500,000,000) 1,185,232
Research Triangle Institute (466,070,508) 1,950
Louis Berger Group (300,000,000) 212,456
Creative Associates International Inc. (217,139,368) 10,300
Source
I am sure that a nexus does not exist between the amount of money contributed to
campaign and the contract dollar amount awarded this is merel random convergance. Being the of top three contributors, 2 of which recieved top contract rewards.
-
Title: Is There Any Doubt
Post by: xmedia2004 on September 18, 2005, 12:59:00 AM
-
The Source
Halliburton admits $6m kickbacks
Meal Overcharges
Halliburton suspends bill for army meals
U.S Taxpayer Fraud. You paid for this, joke is on you.
-
Title: Is There Any Doubt
Post by: xmedia2004 on September 18, 2005, 01:13:00 AM
-
Afghanistan and Iraq are major line items on the US balance sheet. Line items in the billions(with a b ) of dollars spectrum.
U.S. taxpayers are currently bailing out airline companies from poor business models and fiscal policy which amounts to welfare. This by no interpretation is capitalism. Frankly sounds like communism.
Taxpayer money diverted to the social, political, economic benifit of any private business ,citizen, or entity is called WELFARE plain and simple
-
Title: Is There Any Doubt
Post by: Statecowboy on September 18, 2005, 01:22:00 AM
-
Dude, stop fucking posting over and over...we get it...you hate bush, congratulations. Why don't you spend some of your time and effort driving to N.O. and helping out instead of pointing fingers and looking up history on the web and posting links like you are doing research for the good of humanity. Stop bitching and do something.
-
Title: Is There Any Doubt
Post by: xmedia2004 on September 18, 2005, 01:29:00 AM
-
Simply not true,
Top 10 US companies in this sector with major campaign contributions
Kellogg Brown & Root
Bechtel Group Inc.
International American Products Inc.
Perini Corp.
Contrack International Inc.
Fluor Corp.
Washington Group International
Research Triangle Institute
Louis Berger Group
Creative Associates International Inc.
Not true
Ethics LAw Violations Chaney/Halliburton
LANDON14 you are mistaken Chaneys residual stock options have been reproted on major news for last 5 years,
What HARD FACTS?? Stick to Pwer Rangers something you know about Ma Roon?
-
Title: Is There Any Doubt
Post by: xmedia2004 on September 18, 2005, 01:48:00 AM
-
Post by: xmedia2004 on September 18, 2005, 12:24:00 AM
QUOTE
Hmm, im sorry, what New Orleans company is going to be capable of managing a multibillion dollar construction project?
Durr Heavy Construction, LLC
817 Hickory Avenue
Harahan, LA 70123
Richlyn Construction, Inc.
21449-8 Marion Lane
Mandeville, LA 70471
985-871-8990
LAGC HEADQUARTERS
666 North Street
Baton Rouge, LA 70802
PH 225-344-0432
To name a few of top 100 US consturuction firms that happen to be in La.
Post by: xmedia2004 on September 18, 2005, 12:47:00 AM
QUOTE
when Clinton was in office he did not even bid it out - he simply awarded it to haliburton. How come there was no outrage then? Atleast now their is a public bidding process that anyone can scrutinize. The interesting part is that you never hear about that. And why not? The records are publicly available. If you want us to buy into this dig a little bit past "chenney - halliburton" and provide us with some real evidence that the bid was not competitive compared to other qualified candidates. Otherwise get some business experience and see how it all really works, and understand that so long as the bid was good and they deliver within reason I dont care.
The Source
QUOTE
The arrival of Dick Cheney as CEO in 1995 was, by far, the best decision Halliburton ever made. Government-backed loans from the Export-Import bank increased from $100 million to $1.5 billion. The company became the 18th-largest defense contractor, in terms of revenue, whereas before Cheney's arrival the company was the 73rd largest contractor.
Halliburton saw its revenue increase 30 percent to $16 billion in 2003, largely because of its military contracts in the middle east. Halliburton was the number one U.S. Army contractor in 2003 with the total value of its Army contracts valued at $3,731,725,648. Dan Briody, in his book The Halliburton Agenda, described Halliburton's relationship with Cheney as "the embodiment of the Iron Triangle, the nexus of the government, military, and big business that President Eisenhower warned America about in his farewell speech."
Halliburton saw its revenue increase 30 percent to $16 billion in 2003, largely because of its military contracts in the middle east. Halliburton was the number one U.S. Army contractor in 2003 with the total value of its Army contracts valued at $3,731,725,648. Dan Briody, in his book The Halliburton Agenda, described Halliburton's relationship with Cheney as "the embodiment of the Iron Triangle, the nexus of the government, military, and big business that President Eisenhower warned America about in his farewell speech."
(reconstruction contracts) Campaign contributions
Kellogg Brown & Root (Halliburton) ($2,329,040,891) $2,379,792
Bechtel Group Inc. (1,029,833,000) 3,310,102
International American Products Inc. (526,805, 651) 2,500
Perini Corp. (525,000,000) 119,000
Contrack International Inc. (500,000,000) 2,000
Fluor Corp. (500,000,000) 3,624,173
Washington Group International (500,000,000) 1,185,232
Research Triangle Institute (466,070,508) 1,950
Louis Berger Group (300,000,000) 212,456
Creative Associates International Inc. (217,139,368) 10,300
Source
I am sure that a nexus does not exist between the amount of money contributed to
campaign and the contract dollar amount awarded this is merel random convergance. Being the of top three contributors, 2 of which recieved top contract rewards.
Post by: xmedia2004 on September 18, 2005, 12:59:00 AM
QUOTE
If you want us to buy into this dig a little bit past "chenney - halliburton" and provide us with some real evidence that the bid was not competitive compared to other qualified candidates. Otherwise get some business experience and see how it all really works, and understand that so long as the bid was good and they deliver within reason I dont care.
The Source
QUOTE
Kickbacks
Halliburton admitted that two of its KBR employees accepted $6.3 million in kickbacks from a Kuwaiti-based subcontractor. Halliburton's internal audit revealed that employees accepted kickbacks in exchange for providing Army supply contracts to the subcontractor. The company repaid the $6.3 million to the Army Materiel Command in January 2004 and fired the employees involved.
Halliburton admitted that two of its KBR employees accepted $6.3 million in kickbacks from a Kuwaiti-based subcontractor. Halliburton's internal audit revealed that employees accepted kickbacks in exchange for providing Army supply contracts to the subcontractor. The company repaid the $6.3 million to the Army Materiel Command in January 2004 and fired the employees involved.
Halliburton admits $6m kickbacks
QUOTE
Energy services giant Halliburton has admitted that it has fired two members of staff in Iraq for taking kickbacks of up to $6m (£3.3m).
Meal Overcharges
QUOTE
Halliburton unit KBR overcharged the U.S. government for meals supplied to troops at five military bases in Iraq and Kuwait during 2003. The company had overcharged by $27.4 million over a 9-month period. In one military camp in July 2003, KBR billed the government for an average 42,000 meals a day but served only 14,000 meals. Pentagon auditors found the overcharges during a routine audit of Halliburton
Halliburton suspends bill for army meals
QUOTE
The oil services and logistics company said it had suspended billing the US army for catering services in the Middle East, in the face of allegations of massive overcharging.
Halliburton has more than $9bn (£4.8bn) worth of contracts in Iraq, more than any other company, but it has been plagued by claims of cronyism, corruption and financial mismanagement
Halliburton has more than $9bn (£4.8bn) worth of contracts in Iraq, more than any other company, but it has been plagued by claims of cronyism, corruption and financial mismanagement
U.S Taxpayer Fraud. You paid for this, joke is on you.
Post by: xmedia2004 on September 18, 2005, 01:13:00 AM
QUOTE
Wow, how did you want him to save money?
Most of our "aid" money goes to help the poor. It may be the poor college student, the poor old person, the poor minority person, or the poor retarded child.
I know the wealthy get tax cuts, but the poor actually get money from the government. The only people's money you can take away is the poor people's. A tax cut is very different than a government program. The only way he can tighten the budget is to cut programs.
Most of our "aid" money goes to help the poor. It may be the poor college student, the poor old person, the poor minority person, or the poor retarded child.
I know the wealthy get tax cuts, but the poor actually get money from the government. The only people's money you can take away is the poor people's. A tax cut is very different than a government program. The only way he can tighten the budget is to cut programs.
Afghanistan and Iraq are major line items on the US balance sheet. Line items in the billions(with a b ) of dollars spectrum.
U.S. taxpayers are currently bailing out airline companies from poor business models and fiscal policy which amounts to welfare. This by no interpretation is capitalism. Frankly sounds like communism.
QUOTE
A tax cut is very different than a government program
Taxpayer money diverted to the social, political, economic benifit of any private business ,citizen, or entity is called WELFARE plain and simple
Post by: Statecowboy on September 18, 2005, 01:22:00 AM
Post by: xmedia2004 on September 18, 2005, 01:29:00 AM
QUOTE
My god, what dont you wacko's understand about Haliburton being the only American company that do what they do?? What...do you want us to outsource to another nation? How will that help our economy? Best to keep the money here at home dont 'cha think?
Simply not true,
Top 10 US companies in this sector with major campaign contributions
Kellogg Brown & Root
Bechtel Group Inc.
International American Products Inc.
Perini Corp.
Contrack International Inc.
Fluor Corp.
Washington Group International
Research Triangle Institute
Louis Berger Group
Creative Associates International Inc.
QUOTE
Not to mention that Cheney sold all of his stock in the company when he agreed to run with Bush for VP because he knew the kind of flack he would get from dumb asses like yourselves....so no, he doesnt get any profit from Haliburtons contract. Like puckSR said, just stick to your gaming unless you have something intelligent to say....Nimrod's!
Not true
QUOTE
But, just as Cheney's wild claims about weapons of mass destruction turned out to be untrue and his claim that Halliburton had no ties to Saddam Hussein was bogus, his denial about profiting from Halliburton as vice president was also a bald-face lie. So while Cheney denied any relationship with Halliburton as vice president, he conveniently forgot to mention that he continues to receive from the company deferred salary of over $150,000 while maintaining 433,333 shares of unexercised stock options. Certainly, Cheney has a "financial interest in Halliburton" while working as vice president.
When confronted with the proof of his ongoing financial ties with Halliburton, Cheney responded by claiming his deferred salary and stock options are not actually a "financial interest" as defined by federal ethics standards and therefore not a conflict of interest. This prompted the Congressional Research Service to issue a report which confirmed Cheney's ongoing financial interest in Halliburton "is considered among the 'ties' retained in or 'linkages to former employers' that may 'represent a continuing financial interest' in those employers which makes them potential conflicts of interest."
When confronted with the proof of his ongoing financial ties with Halliburton, Cheney responded by claiming his deferred salary and stock options are not actually a "financial interest" as defined by federal ethics standards and therefore not a conflict of interest. This prompted the Congressional Research Service to issue a report which confirmed Cheney's ongoing financial interest in Halliburton "is considered among the 'ties' retained in or 'linkages to former employers' that may 'represent a continuing financial interest' in those employers which makes them potential conflicts of interest."
Ethics LAw Violations Chaney/Halliburton
QUOTE
Well said damam! Kinda funny how when a thread like this one starts getting some hard facts iserted that the thread starter and all the other bandwagon anti-capitalist posters become silent. Gee....I wonder why
LANDON14 you are mistaken Chaneys residual stock options have been reproted on major news for last 5 years,
What HARD FACTS?? Stick to Pwer Rangers something you know about Ma Roon?
Post by: xmedia2004 on September 18, 2005, 01:48:00 AM
QUOTE(Statecowboy @ Sep 18 2005, 09:33 AM)
Dude, stop fucking posting over and over...we get it...you hate bush, congratulations. Why don't you spend some of your time and effort driving to N.O. and helping out instead of pointing fingers and looking up history on the web and posting links like you are doing research for the good of humanity. Stop bitching and do something.
-
Title: Is There Any Doubt
Post by: xmedia2004 on September 18, 2005, 06:46:00 PM
-
This was taken from a list of the top 100 construction firms in US, someone stated that firms as such didn't exist in New Orleans, a town that recieves the lions share of commercial shipping of US ports.
For someone to state as they did that Halliburton is the only kid on the block is
not accurate.
I got no beef with Halliburton I do not think that they are corrupt.
I WORK FOR BECHTEL SAIC.
It just seems suspect to me that the a company the VP has a vested financial interest in should benefit so enormously. Seems to be at best an ethics violation from my Bechtel morals and ethics code training.
Or the fact that the two largest campaign contributors recieve largest IRAQ contracts.
Why should public money go to private coporate entities. It is illegal for public funds to be diverted to private schools.
Capitalism 101 when poor business models are propped up by subsidies that
creates ineffieciencies in economic market. When inferior business models
fail as a result in true economic competition this is good for consumers.
If I can buy catfish from Vietnam for $0.25/lb as oppose to homegrown for
$ 1.00/lb then I should buy Veitnamese catfish.
IF SWA can fly me from Boston to LA for $ 198.00 and American or Delta cant beat price or service fly SWA
This is the basis of our economic system if you cant compete get out of business
service then I fly SWA.
WTF, save the BS life is a liability with two constants taxation and death.
Taxes are for public works not private profiteering period simple.
Whether it be Subway, FEMA, High School or NASA.
Dude I been a contractor on a federal contract subcontracted to Bechtel for a few years now. I cant complain pay is good, but a wolf is still a wolf no matter how you dress it, and I have come to realize the inner workings of the "corporate hustle " And nothing is wrong with it when it does not rely primarily on public tax dollars that only increase shareholder wealth not the public domain.
I am not begging anyone to agree with me just open your eyes and think with your own F*ing brain.
It easy just to say that same BS with no basis in actual fact that only represents
common american sterotypes of whatever the popular type is for the moment.
Example: your buddy(Pug_ster) over in the Racism thread everything he spews is based on emotional propoganda. He sounds like an obsessed american Taliban frankly. From his comments I kind draw some generalizations from him.
One being that his parents probabaly dont have college educations, he probably stays in the same small town his grandparents were born and died, and he probably is at or just below national poverty level.
I guess that this is a far worser punishment than anything the (blacks, mexicans,arabs, or jews) could do to him.
-
Title: Is There Any Doubt
Post by: xmedia2004 on September 18, 2005, 09:45:00 PM
-
It has communist overtones. And to point out that federal beauracracies dont do their jobs isnt anything new, DUH!!!!! FEMA
Federal Trade Commision and Securities and Exchange Commision arent enforcement bodies. What jurisdiction do they have to prevent, sanction or bring charges to a Dick Chaney for giving Halliburton inside track. NONE,NILL,NADA
Who pursued MS for anticapitilistic businees practice cartel/monopolistic
business in browser, and windows source code.
NOT SEC, not FTC, DOJ Dept of Justice does this ring a bell. Competion get it not monopoly.
China doesn't practice text book russian communism but Russia didnt practice textbook communism.
Government corporate welfare is not completely communist but is anticapitilsitc.
Why support broken business as a policy.
This statement is not accurate. See the part about neutral referee above.
But the point I was trying to make, say Halliburton a mediocre oil company
that only began to flourish economically when Chaney got elected as VP.
Is simply illegal in free market and fair trade terms, becasue of outside
government inteferance.
If I thought for about 10 min I probably could name 10 Enrons and Global Coms
that said the same thing. But since you didnt name any companies that society has benifited from because they were only ones doing what they do I will leave it at that.
Dude I took three semesters of Economics back in college. Macroeconomics, microeconomics and environmental economics. some time ago, but you arent going to shake me on economics. I knew three eco proffessors that would read what you wrote and laugh in your face honestly. Check the link I provide.
Repeated emotional ramblings do not spontaneously spawn into truth no matter how many times you repeat.
P.S. Pug_ster engineer SURE, sanitation engineer
-
Title: Is There Any Doubt
Post by: Statecowboy on September 18, 2005, 10:19:00 PM
-
Post by: xmedia2004 on September 18, 2005, 06:46:00 PM
QUOTE
Its a good thing that you listed the companies that are actually working on the cleanup. The point i was making is that none of these companies could individually manage the cleanup, and that would leave the US as a general contractor
This was taken from a list of the top 100 construction firms in US, someone stated that firms as such didn't exist in New Orleans, a town that recieves the lions share of commercial shipping of US ports.
For someone to state as they did that Halliburton is the only kid on the block is
not accurate.
I got no beef with Halliburton I do not think that they are corrupt.
I WORK FOR BECHTEL SAIC.
It just seems suspect to me that the a company the VP has a vested financial interest in should benefit so enormously. Seems to be at best an ethics violation from my Bechtel morals and ethics code training.
Or the fact that the two largest campaign contributors recieve largest IRAQ contracts.
Why should public money go to private coporate entities. It is illegal for public funds to be diverted to private schools.
Capitalism 101 when poor business models are propped up by subsidies that
creates ineffieciencies in economic market. When inferior business models
fail as a result in true economic competition this is good for consumers.
If I can buy catfish from Vietnam for $0.25/lb as oppose to homegrown for
$ 1.00/lb then I should buy Veitnamese catfish.
IF SWA can fly me from Boston to LA for $ 198.00 and American or Delta cant beat price or service fly SWA
This is the basis of our economic system if you cant compete get out of business
service then I fly SWA.
QUOTE
From an accounting perspective, a government program is a liability, while a change in the tax rate would be increasing revenue. They are different animals. That what i was saying, and thats what im still saying.
WTF, save the BS life is a liability with two constants taxation and death.
Taxes are for public works not private profiteering period simple.
Whether it be Subway, FEMA, High School or NASA.
QUOTE
Im simply defending the choice of halliburton, claiming that while this may be considered a case of cronyism, its not an outright joke. It isnt like the US hired Jeb Bush's sons lawn care business to clean up the city. They hired a large resource managing company from near NO that has done work on this scale before, and who they are currently employing to do work for them in Iraq. You may not like the company, and it may be bad, but it wasnt wholly inappropriate to select them
Dude I been a contractor on a federal contract subcontracted to Bechtel for a few years now. I cant complain pay is good, but a wolf is still a wolf no matter how you dress it, and I have come to realize the inner workings of the "corporate hustle " And nothing is wrong with it when it does not rely primarily on public tax dollars that only increase shareholder wealth not the public domain.
I am not begging anyone to agree with me just open your eyes and think with your own F*ing brain.
It easy just to say that same BS with no basis in actual fact that only represents
common american sterotypes of whatever the popular type is for the moment.
Example: your buddy(Pug_ster) over in the Racism thread everything he spews is based on emotional propoganda. He sounds like an obsessed american Taliban frankly. From his comments I kind draw some generalizations from him.
One being that his parents probabaly dont have college educations, he probably stays in the same small town his grandparents were born and died, and he probably is at or just below national poverty level.
I guess that this is a far worser punishment than anything the (blacks, mexicans,arabs, or jews) could do to him.
Post by: xmedia2004 on September 18, 2005, 09:45:00 PM
QUOTE
Yeah, and originally you claimed this was a communist act. America isnt a strict capitalism, thats a well known fact. We wouldnt have the FTC if we were, or the SEC or any of the other consumer protection bodies in government
It has communist overtones. And to point out that federal beauracracies dont do their jobs isnt anything new, DUH!!!!! FEMA
Federal Trade Commision and Securities and Exchange Commision arent enforcement bodies. What jurisdiction do they have to prevent, sanction or bring charges to a Dick Chaney for giving Halliburton inside track. NONE,NILL,NADA
Who pursued MS for anticapitilistic businees practice cartel/monopolistic
business in browser, and windows source code.
NOT SEC, not FTC, DOJ Dept of Justice does this ring a bell. Competion get it not monopoly.
China doesn't practice text book russian communism but Russia didnt practice textbook communism.
Government corporate welfare is not completely communist but is anticapitilsitc.
Why support broken business as a policy.
QUOTE
The nation has a long standard of helping major corporations through periods of bankruptcy. The theory behind this is that if they allow large businesses to fail, that it could have drastic and sudden effects on the economy.
This statement is not accurate. See the part about neutral referee above.
But the point I was trying to make, say Halliburton a mediocre oil company
that only began to flourish economically when Chaney got elected as VP.
Is simply illegal in free market and fair trade terms, becasue of outside
government inteferance.
If I thought for about 10 min I probably could name 10 Enrons and Global Coms
that said the same thing. But since you didnt name any companies that society has benifited from because they were only ones doing what they do I will leave it at that.
Dude I took three semesters of Economics back in college. Macroeconomics, microeconomics and environmental economics. some time ago, but you arent going to shake me on economics. I knew three eco proffessors that would read what you wrote and laugh in your face honestly. Check the link I provide.
Repeated emotional ramblings do not spontaneously spawn into truth no matter how many times you repeat.
P.S. Pug_ster engineer SURE, sanitation engineer
Post by: Statecowboy on September 18, 2005, 10:19:00 PM
QUOTE(xmedia2004 @ Sep 18 2005, 03:59 AM)
The truth hurt?
-
Title: Is There Any Doubt
Post by: xmedia2004 on September 18, 2005, 10:45:00 PM
-
Post by: xmedia2004 on September 18, 2005, 10:45:00 PM
QUOTE(Statecowboy @ Sep 19 2005, 06:30 AM)
WTF? My BS? What exactly is my BS? I am not supporting anyone...I think Bush has made his fare share of mistakes. However, I am sick and tired of people ragging on our govt. pointing out the same shit over and over...not being original and wanting people to applaud them for sticking up for something. Well here's a newsflash...Michael Moor already beat you to it.
-
Title: Is There Any Doubt
Post by: damam on September 19, 2005, 09:27:00 AM
-
Not to mention that Cheney sold all of his stock in the company when he agreed to run with Bush for VP because he knew the kind of flack he would get from dumb asses like yourselves....so no, he doesnt get any profit from Haliburtons contract. Like puckSR said, just stick to your gaming unless you have something intelligent to say....Nimrod's!
Not true
. . .
you are mistaken Chaneys residual stock options have been reproted on major news for last 5 years,
. . .
It just seems suspect to me that the a company the VP has a vested financial interest in should benefit so enormously. Seems to be at best an ethics violation from my Bechtel morals and ethics code training.
Every president and VP comes into office with a stock portfolio. Cheney decided to donate all the money earned on haliburton stock (and others that could be seen as a conflict of interest) to charity. Technically he may or may not have sold them, but per the document below, he will get absolutely no money from the stocks other than his innitial base investement. So Cheney is not profiting off of these contracts at all.
Source
40% is going to University of Wyoming
40% will go to George Washington University's medical faculty to be used for tax-exempt charitable purposes
20% will go to Capital Partners for Education , a charity that provides financial aid for low-income students in Washington, DC to attend private and religious schools
He did get about 400,000 dollars in defered salary payments while he has been VP, and he did report them.
then their is the matter of his retirement plan. - Cheney purchased an insurance policy so that if the company went under we would not be effected by that.
Any way you put it, cheney has no financial interest in halliburton. The Feds define a conflict of interest as an employee being able to gain or lose money based on their position. Cheney can neither gain nor lose. He has either insured himself from it or given it away.
if you sift through all the bias at the site you keep using as a reference you can still see all that.
-
Title: Is There Any Doubt
Post by: xmedia2004 on September 19, 2005, 12:42:00 PM
-
At least you did do some research instead of yelling some antiwhatever BS with your eyes closed and finger crossed hoping no one would see through the BS.
No concern of ethical or financial conflict of interest?????
I guess in 2.5 years when he leaves office and all of a sudden gets a big
bonus check from Hally that wont concern you either.
Let me see Public Official A while in public office spoon feeds Corporation B government and state contracts. When corporate official A gets out of office
corporation b put him back on payroll officially. <- Does this ring a bell.
You know Hally by no means was an industry giant or leader prior to Chaneys
inside tracking.
-
Title: Is There Any Doubt
Post by: damam on September 19, 2005, 02:14:00 PM
-
I have more than demonstrated that he is not dependent on halliburton.
If you think he is why dont you show where Cheney is financially dependent on Halliburton from the point he was VP until now - you have yet to do this and until you do their is no conflict of interest.
btw - the 400k he received would have been paid for by the insurance if hali had defaulted - so once again no conflict.
Halliburton/brown have done several big govt contracts under both clinton and bush. For example, Halliburton/brown did the vast majority of the LOGCAP contracts over the past decade and through out the clinton administration. To my knowledge all of the current contracts that are in dispute with haliburton are LOGCAP as well. So clearly they do have a strong presence in the industry. If not, then why would clinton have awarded them the contract in 1997?
-
Title: Is There Any Doubt
Post by: Statecowboy on September 19, 2005, 03:22:00 PM
-
-
Title: Is There Any Doubt
Post by: Statecowboy on September 19, 2005, 03:23:00 PM
-
Post by: damam on September 19, 2005, 09:27:00 AM
QUOTE
QUOTE
Not to mention that Cheney sold all of his stock in the company when he agreed to run with Bush for VP because he knew the kind of flack he would get from dumb asses like yourselves....so no, he doesnt get any profit from Haliburtons contract. Like puckSR said, just stick to your gaming unless you have something intelligent to say....Nimrod's!
Not true
. . .
you are mistaken Chaneys residual stock options have been reproted on major news for last 5 years,
. . .
It just seems suspect to me that the a company the VP has a vested financial interest in should benefit so enormously. Seems to be at best an ethics violation from my Bechtel morals and ethics code training.
Every president and VP comes into office with a stock portfolio. Cheney decided to donate all the money earned on haliburton stock (and others that could be seen as a conflict of interest) to charity. Technically he may or may not have sold them, but per the document below, he will get absolutely no money from the stocks other than his innitial base investement. So Cheney is not profiting off of these contracts at all.
Source
40% is going to University of Wyoming
40% will go to George Washington University's medical faculty to be used for tax-exempt charitable purposes
20% will go to Capital Partners for Education , a charity that provides financial aid for low-income students in Washington, DC to attend private and religious schools
He did get about 400,000 dollars in defered salary payments while he has been VP, and he did report them.
then their is the matter of his retirement plan. - Cheney purchased an insurance policy so that if the company went under we would not be effected by that.
Any way you put it, cheney has no financial interest in halliburton. The Feds define a conflict of interest as an employee being able to gain or lose money based on their position. Cheney can neither gain nor lose. He has either insured himself from it or given it away.
if you sift through all the bias at the site you keep using as a reference you can still see all that.
Post by: xmedia2004 on September 19, 2005, 12:42:00 PM
QUOTE
Source
40% is going to University of Wyoming
40% will go to George Washington University's medical faculty to be used for tax-exempt charitable purposes
20% will go to Capital Partners for Education , a charity that provides financial aid for low-income students in Washington, DC to attend private and religious schools
He did get about 400,000 dollars in defered salary payments while he has been VP, and he did report them.
40% is going to University of Wyoming
40% will go to George Washington University's medical faculty to be used for tax-exempt charitable purposes
20% will go to Capital Partners for Education , a charity that provides financial aid for low-income students in Washington, DC to attend private and religious schools
He did get about 400,000 dollars in defered salary payments while he has been VP, and he did report them.
At least you did do some research instead of yelling some antiwhatever BS with your eyes closed and finger crossed hoping no one would see through the BS.
QUOTE
He did get about 400,000 dollars in defered salary payments while he has been VP, and he did report them.
No concern of ethical or financial conflict of interest?????
I guess in 2.5 years when he leaves office and all of a sudden gets a big
bonus check from Hally that wont concern you either.
QUOTE
The Feds define a conflict of interest as an employee being able to gain or lose money based on their position
Let me see Public Official A while in public office spoon feeds Corporation B government and state contracts. When corporate official A gets out of office
corporation b put him back on payroll officially. <- Does this ring a bell.
You know Hally by no means was an industry giant or leader prior to Chaneys
inside tracking.
Post by: damam on September 19, 2005, 02:14:00 PM
QUOTE(xmedia2004 @ Sep 19 2005, 08:53 AM)
No concern of ethical or financial conflict of interest?????
I have more than demonstrated that he is not dependent on halliburton.
If you think he is why dont you show where Cheney is financially dependent on Halliburton from the point he was VP until now - you have yet to do this and until you do their is no conflict of interest.
btw - the 400k he received would have been paid for by the insurance if hali had defaulted - so once again no conflict.
QUOTE
You know Hally by no means was an industry giant or leader prior to Chaneys
inside tracking.
inside tracking.
Halliburton/brown have done several big govt contracts under both clinton and bush. For example, Halliburton/brown did the vast majority of the LOGCAP contracts over the past decade and through out the clinton administration. To my knowledge all of the current contracts that are in dispute with haliburton are LOGCAP as well. So clearly they do have a strong presence in the industry. If not, then why would clinton have awarded them the contract in 1997?
Post by: Statecowboy on September 19, 2005, 03:22:00 PM
Post by: Statecowboy on September 19, 2005, 03:23:00 PM
QUOTE(xmedia2004 @ Sep 19 2005, 12:56 AM)
Cowboys, Texas, queer, steer. Nevermind 
-
Title: Is There Any Doubt
Post by: puckSR on September 19, 2005, 03:58:00 PM
-
Hey Cowboy, im going to make fun of you for one simple reason, Tech is going to kick your ass this year. I would make fun of the sooners, but I know you hate them worse than Mack Brown. So you might get 1 big 12 south win(Sooners)
xmedia-i think damam got you. He has shown you that any impropriety on the part of Dick Cheney is predicted, and until the year 2008 comes, is merely speculative. It may very well be true, but the last time i checked, we are not capable of condemning people for future acts. Unless this is a really bad movie starring Tom Cruise, and i really hope it isnt.
Oh and just to respond to companies surviving bankruptcy to help the economy....
how about Kmart?--well the jury is still out
How about Stage Stores Inc?
Enron and the like are different. They may employ many people, but in a crisis, other companies will quickly absorb their business.
Do you really think southwest wants to buy up all of the Delta planes? Do you really think they want to absorb there failing business?
If a city bus service is not profitable, and the bus system is private, the city may try to purchase or supplement the bus service to maintain a public transportation system. This is a similiar situation. I agree that their may exist some corruption, but most of the time the answer to a question is simpler than we want it to be, and in this case while the government may be wrong, they probably think that they are doing the right thing.
Im attacking your conspiracy theory more than i am attacking your actual misgivings about the way money is being managed.
-
Title: Is There Any Doubt
Post by: Statecowboy on September 19, 2005, 04:08:00 PM
-
Post by: puckSR on September 19, 2005, 03:58:00 PM
xmedia-i think damam got you. He has shown you that any impropriety on the part of Dick Cheney is predicted, and until the year 2008 comes, is merely speculative. It may very well be true, but the last time i checked, we are not capable of condemning people for future acts. Unless this is a really bad movie starring Tom Cruise, and i really hope it isnt.
Oh and just to respond to companies surviving bankruptcy to help the economy....
how about Kmart?--well the jury is still out
How about Stage Stores Inc?
Enron and the like are different. They may employ many people, but in a crisis, other companies will quickly absorb their business.
Do you really think southwest wants to buy up all of the Delta planes? Do you really think they want to absorb there failing business?
If a city bus service is not profitable, and the bus system is private, the city may try to purchase or supplement the bus service to maintain a public transportation system. This is a similiar situation. I agree that their may exist some corruption, but most of the time the answer to a question is simpler than we want it to be, and in this case while the government may be wrong, they probably think that they are doing the right thing.
Im attacking your conspiracy theory more than i am attacking your actual misgivings about the way money is being managed.
Post by: Statecowboy on September 19, 2005, 04:08:00 PM
QUOTE(puckSR @ Sep 19 2005, 06:09 PM)
Hey Cowboy, im going to make fun of you for one simple reason, Tech is going to kick your ass this year. I would make fun of the sooners, but I know you hate them worse than Mack Brown. So you might get 1 big 12 south win(Sooners)
-
Title: Is There Any Doubt
Post by: xmedia2004 on September 19, 2005, 05:26:00 PM
-
Post by: xmedia2004 on September 19, 2005, 05:26:00 PM
QUOTE(Statecowboy @ Sep 19 2005, 11:34 PM)
Oh is that what it means...thanks for explaining!
-
Title: Is There Any Doubt
Post by: Statecowboy on September 19, 2005, 05:36:00 PM
-
Post by: Statecowboy on September 19, 2005, 05:36:00 PM
QUOTE(xmedia2004 @ Sep 19 2005, 07:37 PM)
Your illogical bully tactics, yell and scream fall out on the floor kicking and screaming, at least I got a consistent view not based upon the dummy standing beside me, or what is in style at the moment.
-
Title: Is There Any Doubt
Post by: xmedia2004 on September 19, 2005, 05:46:00 PM
-
Post by: xmedia2004 on September 19, 2005, 05:46:00 PM
QUOTE(puckSR @ Sep 20 2005, 12:09 AM)
Hey Cowboy, im going to make fun of you for one simple reason, Tech is going to kick your ass this year. I would make fun of the sooners, but I know you hate them worse than Mack Brown. So you might get 1 big 12 south win(Sooners)
-
Title: Is There Any Doubt
Post by: xmedia2004 on September 19, 2005, 06:30:00 PM
-
Federal contracts from 1990 through fiscal year 2002
Halliburton barely makes top 10.
I wonder if I can demonstrate an escalation of Halliburton Revenues in the
period its former CEO as VP.
Halliburton Profits 1998 - 2003
Dont have to because there is a clear nexus between escalation of Halliburton profits and the admins role in securing contracts exclusivly for them
To say Chaney is not currently profiting is not the same as Chaney will not or has not profited.
Anatomy of 11.4 Billion
In Iraq, Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root has been awarded five contracts worth at least $10.8 billion, including more than $5.6 billion under the U.S. Army's Logistics Civil Augmentation Program contract,
Damaan You said awarded by Clinton. so is U.S. Army's Logistics Civil Augmentation Program <- Alias for Bill Clinton
From 1992 to 1997, KBR held the first LOGCAP contract awarded by the Army, but when it was time to renew the contract, the company lost in the competitive bidding process to DynCorp after the General Accounting Office reported in February 1997 that KBR had overrun its estimated costs in the Balkans by 32 percent
P.S. they did " beat out DynCorp and defense giant Raytheon for the third LOGCAP contract in December 2001, this one to run 10 years. " <- Clear, transparent
The contract KBR receivedcontract DACA63-03-D-0005 LOGCAP III
No Open bidding
June 2003, the Army Corps announced that it would replace KBR's oil-infrastructure contract with two publicly bid contracts
Nope, most were given No Bid by Army or whoever point is NO BID. This contract is the lions share. The won one contract illustrated above that they were removed from.
Industry leaders but cant keep competitive contract.
Price overruns and fictous charges sounds familiar, But I guess Al Sharpton, Rosie O'Donnell and the rest of the liberals made this up.
P.S. Damaan good post you actually made me do some real research, it sure wasnt the norm, repeat 3x " Thats what my daddy" said real loud.
-
Title: Is There Any Doubt
Post by: xmedia2004 on September 19, 2005, 06:52:00 PM
-
-
Title: Is There Any Doubt
Post by: xmedia2004 on September 19, 2005, 10:37:00 PM
-
Post by: xmedia2004 on September 19, 2005, 06:30:00 PM
QUOTE
Halliburton/brown have done several big govt contracts under both clinton and bush. For example, Halliburton/brown did the vast majority of the LOGCAP contracts over the past decade and through out the clinton administration.
Federal contracts from 1990 through fiscal year 2002
QUOTE
General Electric Company 
$43,736,487,000
Vinnell Corporation (Northrop Grumman) $42,414,198,000
Science Applications International Corp. $16,194,431,000
DynCorp (Computer Sciences Corp.) $15,809,649,000
Bechtel Group Inc. $11,742,537,000
Unisys Corporation $10,772,003,000
Fluor Corp. $8,544,917,000
United Defense Industries, L.P. $7,299,691,000
Kellogg, Brown & Root (Halliburton) $5,686,006,000
$43,736,487,000 Vinnell Corporation (Northrop Grumman)
$42,414,198,000 Science Applications International Corp.
$16,194,431,000 DynCorp (Computer Sciences Corp.)
$15,809,649,000 Bechtel Group Inc.
$11,742,537,000 Unisys Corporation
$10,772,003,000 Fluor Corp.
$8,544,917,000 United Defense Industries, L.P.
$7,299,691,000 Kellogg, Brown & Root (Halliburton) $5,686,006,000
Halliburton barely makes top 10.
I wonder if I can demonstrate an escalation of Halliburton Revenues in the
period its former CEO as VP.
Halliburton Profits 1998 - 2003
QUOTE
If you think he is why dont you show where Cheney is financially dependent on Halliburton from the point he was VP until now - you have yet to do this and until you do their is no conflict of interest
Dont have to because there is a clear nexus between escalation of Halliburton profits and the admins role in securing contracts exclusivly for them
To say Chaney is not currently profiting is not the same as Chaney will not or has not profited.
QUOTE
Halliburton/brown have done several big govt contracts under both clinton and bush. For example, Halliburton/brown did the vast majority of the LOGCAP contracts over the past decade and through out the clinton administration. To my knowledge all of the current contracts that are in dispute with haliburton are LOGCAP as well. So clearly they do have a strong presence in the industry. If not, then why would clinton have awarded them the contract in 1997?
Anatomy of 11.4 Billion
In Iraq, Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root has been awarded five contracts worth at least $10.8 billion, including more than $5.6 billion under the U.S. Army's Logistics Civil Augmentation Program contract,
Damaan You said awarded by Clinton. so is U.S. Army's Logistics Civil Augmentation Program <- Alias for Bill Clinton
From 1992 to 1997, KBR held the first LOGCAP contract awarded by the Army, but when it was time to renew the contract, the company lost in the competitive bidding process to DynCorp after the General Accounting Office reported in February 1997 that KBR had overrun its estimated costs in the Balkans by 32 percent
P.S. they did " beat out DynCorp and defense giant Raytheon for the third LOGCAP contract in December 2001, this one to run 10 years. " <- Clear, transparent
The contract KBR receivedcontract DACA63-03-D-0005 LOGCAP III
No Open bidding
June 2003, the Army Corps announced that it would replace KBR's oil-infrastructure contract with two publicly bid contracts
QUOTE
So clearly they do have a strong presence in the industry. If not, then why would clinton have awarded them the contract in 1997
Nope, most were given No Bid by Army or whoever point is NO BID. This contract is the lions share. The won one contract illustrated above that they were removed from.
QUOTE
March 8, 2003, no-bid Iraqi oil restoration contract awarded by the Army Corps of Engineers to KBR, increased from its original ceiling of $24 million to $887.37 million
Industry leaders but cant keep competitive contract.
Price overruns and fictous charges sounds familiar, But I guess Al Sharpton, Rosie O'Donnell and the rest of the liberals made this up.
P.S. Damaan good post you actually made me do some real research, it sure wasnt the norm, repeat 3x " Thats what my daddy" said real loud.
Post by: xmedia2004 on September 19, 2005, 06:52:00 PM
Quote from: puckSR,Sep 20 2005, 02:28 AM
Post by: xmedia2004 on September 19, 2005, 10:37:00 PM
QUOTE(puckSR @ Sep 20 2005, 05:24 AM)
You do realize i was defending the kid? pug_ster was saying that it was the kids own fault for being black and going to an italian neighborhood?
-
Title: Is There Any Doubt
Post by: xmedia2004 on September 19, 2005, 10:41:00 PM
-
Post by: xmedia2004 on September 19, 2005, 10:41:00 PM
QUOTE(Statecowboy @ Sep 20 2005, 01:47 AM)
But oh how wrong you are...the norm is to blame the president now a days.
-
Title: Is There Any Doubt
Post by: Statecowboy on September 20, 2005, 01:12:00 PM
-
Post by: Statecowboy on September 20, 2005, 01:12:00 PM
QUOTE(xmedia2004 @ Sep 20 2005, 12:52 AM)
You need to stop listening to RAP music.
-
Title: Is There Any Doubt
Post by: xmedia2004 on September 20, 2005, 01:31:00 PM
-
Post by: xmedia2004 on September 20, 2005, 01:31:00 PM
QUOTE(Statecowboy @ Sep 20 2005, 09:23 PM)
You need to stop thinking so highly of yourself. By the way, where are you from? Oh, and I'm not queer, so I guess that makes me a steer? Are there any more options for a southerner? You are really glibb buddy. Also, what's a socially progressive minded young fellow like you throwing around the word queer anyway?
-
Title: Is There Any Doubt
Post by: damam on September 20, 2005, 02:01:00 PM
-
Looking at a companies financials during a bid to make sure they have the resources to pull off a job is important. All this suggests is that they would fill that criteria of being able to handle the job from a financial point of view. It would however, looking at the list you used in its complete form, show that "Young, Brian" who made 39,000 as a project manager probably would not be able to handle the job, so he would get cut from the bidding process for larger contracts.
It is true that Dyncorp won in 1997 (seen as a punishement for going over budget), however, Clinton split the logcap when they won and kept KBR on even though they lost. This is the bid that they were awarded via clinton. The work that Clinton had them do from 1997 on through the split in the logcap was finishing up in haiti, somolia, and then tons of stuff in the balkans. The biggest contracts given out were in the Balkans. Those contracts that clinton kept them on for made up the bulk of the money made through logcap during this period (kbr yearly profits from govt contracts more than doubled during this period as your graph shows). This was done because it was felt that it would be more expensive to switch companies. However, if kbr had proven themselves to be totally incompetant, you can be sure they would have switched anyways (unless Clinton is on the take as well ).
which brings me to the next point
the 32% over and other scope creep issues-
this is true as well. And it goes above and beyond the amt that all contractors try and screw you with
Given that, to quote the part you left out "(some of which was attributed to an increase in the Army's demands)" from the page where you got the quote. Iraq has definitely seen similar things as you have pointed out with a 24mil bid going to nearly 900mil. Even so, I see this as more of an issue of the Govt, the army in particular, learning to deal with contractors. All contractors try and screw you after the bid, its business as usual, a good manager doesnt let them get away with it too badly. The GAO has correctly pointed the finger squarely at the military several times for failing to keep KBR in check during both administrations demonstrating a pattern not unique to the bush administration. The military is new at this, and it takes lots of accountants to keep them in check. This represents a real paradigm shift for the military and hopefully in time they will get better. A big part of the problem is making the ceilings publicly known. Any contractor who sees that they have a 7billion dollar ceiling, and is only charging 1 billion (as in the case you used with hali), is going to do anything they can to increase the scope to get a bigger piece of the pie. Some of the scope creep on the 24mil was legit as pointed out in the article you pulled the quote from, but it probably wastn all legit, and it is the militaries job to sort through that. Thats just the way it works because they are the contract managers. And if you think the Hali is the only one that does this your out of your mind, they all do it. I was just involved in a project last year that went from 35mil to 180mil in a matter of months and was projected to go far beyond that and Hali was no where near the project.
I used to work in government bidding processes for several years so maybe thats why this makes sense to me, but most importantly is not out of the ordinary or considered no bid by the govt. Once a company wins a bid through a competitive process, the gov holds them to that bid for a set period of time. Then any other government agency can piggy back onto that bid and be ok since the original bid was won through a competitive process. Its seen as a way to keep the government from wasting resources and reinventing the wheel. Companies use this in various ways - established companies tend to bid high relying on consumer confidence - new companies tend to bid low to get a beachfront. Both realize that they are not just bidding for that contract.
example1: The dept of transportation set up a bidding process for a database system. Oracle wins. Im in education, so rather than re-bid everything out I can legitematly say oracle won using the same bid since they have already won another bid via a competant competetive bidding system.
example2: The dept of transportation set up a bidding process for a database system. Oracle wins. Im in education, and I need MS SQL, rather than re-bid, I can take the bid from dept of transportation and hold MS to the amt they bid there and take the contract.
example3: They each do their own bids.
All are considered legit competitive bidding by govt.
Apply this to Hali: This is still considered a competitive bid and not an award. Since Hali won LOGCAP the army can go with them and have it be considered a competitive bid. However, what clinton did is considered an award since hali lost that bid, and was still given contracts that were considered under the umbrella of logcap in those regions.
Furthermore, many of these are contract extensions which are also completely legit.
Source
Neither factcheck nor "The Center for Public Integrity" have really found anything of substance that is out of the ordinary in the govt dealings with halli. And as Kelman points out: the premise of the accusations is completely contrary to the way government contracting works, both in theory and in practice.
As puckSR rightly summed up what i was trying to say earlier: That is purely speculative and cannot be proven that it will happen. He may get offered his old job back, or cheney could decide in 2009 he would rather go fishing. We will have to wait and see. I admit that if that does occur or he later receives a kick back it will be a very bad thing. I also imagine that it will result in legislation preventing it from occuring again. In the meantime I am not going to run around in self pity looking for something that isnt there yet, i am going to figure out ways that i can profit off of the situation as well (there is always a way).
this is about as far as this conspiracy can be taken because the deeper you look at it the more ordinary and normal it appears. If a good unbiased org comes out with clear allegations I will definitely re-open the book, but I certainly wont have to have you tell me about it cause I am sure word of the law suit will be all over the news. Every contractor that ever bid will be sueing the govt. And that is really my last point: dont you think these other contractors have motivation to get lawyers to find examples of cronyism? Hali has one of the largest microscopes in the world on them. Yet there is still little evidence they have done anything out of the norm.
Having said all that - I do believe their is a flaw in the LOGCAP bidding process. Once you have won a bid, you become heavily favoured to win and re-win over and over and over again. This is because, as the Clinton Admin found, it becomes an expensive proposition to switch companies due to the learning processes and equipment already in place by the incumbant. If you dont like this blame Al Gore. It was his "Reinventing Government" initiative that created this situation. But personally I see the "Reinventing Government" initiative a step in the right direction. He essentially cut the federal work force thus limiting government. If you think Hali is expensive try letting the army do it. If you have a suggestion for leveling the playing field against incumbant companies like hali I am open to suggestions because a monopoly serves no one.
-
Title: Is There Any Doubt
Post by: Statecowboy on September 20, 2005, 04:11:00 PM
-
Post by: damam on September 20, 2005, 02:01:00 PM
QUOTE(xmedia2004 @ Sep 19 2005, 02:41 PM)
General Electric Company $43,736,487,000
Vinnell Corporation (Northrop Grumman) $42,414,198,000
Science Applications International Corp. $16,194,431,000
DynCorp (Computer Sciences Corp.) $15,809,649,000
Bechtel Group Inc. $11,742,537,000
Unisys Corporation $10,772,003,000
Fluor Corp. $8,544,917,000
United Defense Industries, L.P. $7,299,691,000
Kellogg, Brown & Root (Halliburton) $5,686,006,000
Halliburton barely makes top 10.
Vinnell Corporation (Northrop Grumman) $42,414,198,000
Science Applications International Corp. $16,194,431,000
DynCorp (Computer Sciences Corp.) $15,809,649,000
Bechtel Group Inc. $11,742,537,000
Unisys Corporation $10,772,003,000
Fluor Corp. $8,544,917,000
United Defense Industries, L.P. $7,299,691,000
Kellogg, Brown & Root (Halliburton) $5,686,006,000
Halliburton barely makes top 10.
Looking at a companies financials during a bid to make sure they have the resources to pull off a job is important. All this suggests is that they would fill that criteria of being able to handle the job from a financial point of view. It would however, looking at the list you used in its complete form, show that "Young, Brian" who made 39,000 as a project manager probably would not be able to handle the job, so he would get cut from the bidding process for larger contracts.
QUOTE(xmedia2004)
In Iraq, Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root has been awarded five contracts worth at least $10.8 billion, including more than $5.6 billion under the U.S. Army's Logistics Civil Augmentation Program contract,
Damaan You said awarded by Clinton. so is U.S. Army's Logistics Civil Augmentation Program <- Alias for Bill Clinton
From 1992 to 1997, KBR held the first LOGCAP contract awarded by the Army, but when it was time to renew the contract, the company lost in the competitive bidding process to DynCorp after the General Accounting Office reported in February 1997 that KBR had overrun its estimated costs in the Balkans by 32 percent
P.S. they did " beat out DynCorp and defense giant Raytheon for the third LOGCAP contract in December 2001, this one to run 10 years. " <- Clear, transparent
...
This contract is the lions share. The won one contract illustrated above that they were removed from.
Damaan You said awarded by Clinton. so is U.S. Army's Logistics Civil Augmentation Program <- Alias for Bill Clinton
From 1992 to 1997, KBR held the first LOGCAP contract awarded by the Army, but when it was time to renew the contract, the company lost in the competitive bidding process to DynCorp after the General Accounting Office reported in February 1997 that KBR had overrun its estimated costs in the Balkans by 32 percent
P.S. they did " beat out DynCorp and defense giant Raytheon for the third LOGCAP contract in December 2001, this one to run 10 years. " <- Clear, transparent
...
This contract is the lions share. The won one contract illustrated above that they were removed from.
It is true that Dyncorp won in 1997 (seen as a punishement for going over budget), however, Clinton split the logcap when they won and kept KBR on even though they lost. This is the bid that they were awarded via clinton. The work that Clinton had them do from 1997 on through the split in the logcap was finishing up in haiti, somolia, and then tons of stuff in the balkans. The biggest contracts given out were in the Balkans. Those contracts that clinton kept them on for made up the bulk of the money made through logcap during this period (kbr yearly profits from govt contracts more than doubled during this period as your graph shows). This was done because it was felt that it would be more expensive to switch companies. However, if kbr had proven themselves to be totally incompetant, you can be sure they would have switched anyways (unless Clinton is on the take as well
).QUOTE(CPI)
When the United States joined NATO forces in the Balkans in 1995, KBR was deployed to the Balkans. KBR lost a second five-year LOGCAP contractawarded to DynCorp in 1997 after the General Accounting Office reported in February 1997 that KBR had overrun its estimated costs in the Balkans by 32 percent (some of which was attributed to an increase in the Army's demands). Despite these findings, KBR was awarded a new contract for Balkan logistical support that ran through May 1999. In September 2000, the GAO released another report claiming the Army had not reined in contractor costs, placing the total cost of the Balkan contract at $2.2 billion.
which brings me to the next point
the 32% over and other scope creep issues-
this is true as well. And it goes above and beyond the amt that all contractors try and screw you with
Given that, to quote the part you left out "(some of which was attributed to an increase in the Army's demands)" from the page where you got the quote. Iraq has definitely seen similar things as you have pointed out with a 24mil bid going to nearly 900mil. Even so, I see this as more of an issue of the Govt, the army in particular, learning to deal with contractors. All contractors try and screw you after the bid, its business as usual, a good manager doesnt let them get away with it too badly. The GAO has correctly pointed the finger squarely at the military several times for failing to keep KBR in check during both administrations demonstrating a pattern not unique to the bush administration. The military is new at this, and it takes lots of accountants to keep them in check. This represents a real paradigm shift for the military and hopefully in time they will get better. A big part of the problem is making the ceilings publicly known. Any contractor who sees that they have a 7billion dollar ceiling, and is only charging 1 billion (as in the case you used with hali), is going to do anything they can to increase the scope to get a bigger piece of the pie. Some of the scope creep on the 24mil was legit as pointed out in the article you pulled the quote from, but it probably wastn all legit, and it is the militaries job to sort through that. Thats just the way it works because they are the contract managers. And if you think the Hali is the only one that does this your out of your mind, they all do it. I was just involved in a project last year that went from 35mil to 180mil in a matter of months and was projected to go far beyond that and Hali was no where near the project.QUOTE(xmedia2004)
most were given No Bid by Army or whoever point is NO BID
I used to work in government bidding processes for several years so maybe thats why this makes sense to me, but most importantly is not out of the ordinary or considered no bid by the govt. Once a company wins a bid through a competitive process, the gov holds them to that bid for a set period of time. Then any other government agency can piggy back onto that bid and be ok since the original bid was won through a competitive process. Its seen as a way to keep the government from wasting resources and reinventing the wheel. Companies use this in various ways - established companies tend to bid high relying on consumer confidence - new companies tend to bid low to get a beachfront. Both realize that they are not just bidding for that contract.
example1: The dept of transportation set up a bidding process for a database system. Oracle wins. Im in education, so rather than re-bid everything out I can legitematly say oracle won using the same bid since they have already won another bid via a competant competetive bidding system.
example2: The dept of transportation set up a bidding process for a database system. Oracle wins. Im in education, and I need MS SQL, rather than re-bid, I can take the bid from dept of transportation and hold MS to the amt they bid there and take the contract.
example3: They each do their own bids.
All are considered legit competitive bidding by govt.
Apply this to Hali: This is still considered a competitive bid and not an award. Since Hali won LOGCAP the army can go with them and have it be considered a competitive bid. However, what clinton did is considered an award since hali lost that bid, and was still given contracts that were considered under the umbrella of logcap in those regions.
Furthermore, many of these are contract extensions which are also completely legit.
QUOTE(Harvard University professor @ Steven Kelman, who was administrator of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy in the Clinton administration)
One would be hard-pressed to discover anyone with a working knowledge of how federal contracts are awarded -- whether a career civil servant working on procurement or an independent academic expert -- who doesn't regard these allegations as being somewhere between highly improbable and utterly absurd.
Source
Neither factcheck nor "The Center for Public Integrity" have really found anything of substance that is out of the ordinary in the govt dealings with halli. And as Kelman points out: the premise of the accusations is completely contrary to the way government contracting works, both in theory and in practice.
QUOTE(xmedia2004)
To say Chaney is not currently profiting is not the same as Chaney will not or has not profited.
As puckSR rightly summed up what i was trying to say earlier: That is purely speculative and cannot be proven that it will happen. He may get offered his old job back, or cheney could decide in 2009 he would rather go fishing. We will have to wait and see. I admit that if that does occur or he later receives a kick back it will be a very bad thing. I also imagine that it will result in legislation preventing it from occuring again. In the meantime I am not going to run around in self pity looking for something that isnt there yet, i am going to figure out ways that i can profit off of the situation as well (there is always a way).
QUOTE(xmedia2004)
Dont have to because there is a clear nexus between escalation of Halliburton profits and the admins role in securing contracts exclusivly for them
this is about as far as this conspiracy can be taken because the deeper you look at it the more ordinary and normal it appears. If a good unbiased org comes out with clear allegations I will definitely re-open the book, but I certainly wont have to have you tell me about it cause I am sure word of the law suit will be all over the news. Every contractor that ever bid will be sueing the govt. And that is really my last point: dont you think these other contractors have motivation to get lawyers to find examples of cronyism? Hali has one of the largest microscopes in the world on them. Yet there is still little evidence they have done anything out of the norm.
Having said all that - I do believe their is a flaw in the LOGCAP bidding process. Once you have won a bid, you become heavily favoured to win and re-win over and over and over again. This is because, as the Clinton Admin found, it becomes an expensive proposition to switch companies due to the learning processes and equipment already in place by the incumbant. If you dont like this blame Al Gore. It was his "Reinventing Government" initiative that created this situation. But personally I see the "Reinventing Government" initiative a step in the right direction. He essentially cut the federal work force thus limiting government. If you think Hali is expensive try letting the army do it. If you have a suggestion for leveling the playing field against incumbant companies like hali I am open to suggestions because a monopoly serves no one.
Post by: Statecowboy on September 20, 2005, 04:11:00 PM
QUOTE(xmedia2004 @ Sep 20 2005, 03:42 PM)
I was born in the home state of the greatest President of the modern era, Bubba?
-
Title: Is There Any Doubt
Post by: reidtheweed03 on September 20, 2005, 05:06:00 PM
-
Post by: reidtheweed03 on September 20, 2005, 05:06:00 PM
QUOTE(xmedia2004 @ Sep 20 2005, 03:03 AM)
Not exactly he only got mid 40ish % of popular vote, but electoral college is
-
Title: Is There Any Doubt
Post by: damam on September 20, 2005, 06:08:00 PM
-
did i miss something here
popular vote talies
1992 - 43% clinton
1996 - 49.2% clinton
2000 - 47.9% bush
2004 - 50.7% bush
source
-
Title: Is There Any Doubt
Post by: xmedia2004 on September 20, 2005, 06:34:00 PM
-
Post by: damam on September 20, 2005, 06:08:00 PM
QUOTE(xmedia2004)
Not exactly he only got mid 40ish % of popular vote, but electoral college is
another mass enslavement tool to be discussed another day
another mass enslavement tool to be discussed another day
QUOTE(reidtheweed03 @ Sep 20 2005, 01:17 PM)
um good call on that 1, even though he got the most votes in history, but yeah i guess you are right.
did i miss something here
popular vote talies
1992 - 43% clinton
1996 - 49.2% clinton
2000 - 47.9% bush
2004 - 50.7% bush
source
Post by: xmedia2004 on September 20, 2005, 06:34:00 PM
QUOTE
Looking at a companies financials during a bid to make sure they have the resources to pull off a job is important. All this suggests is that they would fill that criteria of being able to handle the job from a financial point of view. It would however, looking at the list you used in its complete form, show that "Young, Brian" who made 39,000 as a project manager probably would not be able to handle the job, so he would get cut from the bidding process for larger contracts.
-
Title: Is There Any Doubt
Post by: xmedia2004 on September 20, 2005, 06:45:00 PM
-
Post by: xmedia2004 on September 20, 2005, 06:45:00 PM
QUOTE(damam @ Sep 21 2005, 02:19 AM)
did i miss something here
-
Title: Is There Any Doubt
Post by: xmedia2004 on September 20, 2005, 06:48:00 PM
-
Post by: xmedia2004 on September 20, 2005, 06:48:00 PM
QUOTE(Statecowboy @ Sep 21 2005, 12:22 AM)
So you're telling me a guy from Arkansas was making fun of me for being from Oklahoma???
-
Title: Is There Any Doubt
Post by: reidtheweed03 on September 20, 2005, 08:02:00 PM
-
hahahahahaha thank you for showing that wiki about the elections, i was looking at all of the older 1s and i noticed a few things. For 1 not until recently its been 1 canidate or the other, for the most part 1 person won it all or pretty much nothing, and every now and then it split. The best thing i found out of it all is this 1 simple picture that will should end all of the bitching about saying george bush hardly won, and that he cheated tens of thousands of votes.
-
Title: Is There Any Doubt
Post by: xmedia2004 on September 20, 2005, 08:40:00 PM
-
Bush won by the skin on his teeth. This was the closest election in recent history.
Electoral college is matrix type bull sh*t end of story.
122, 295,345 individuals voted.
62,040,610 voted for Bush
59,028,444 voted for Kerry
The number of physical "counted" votes seperating the two is comparable to the total error of the election process.
In plain English, consider this, you and three friends take a 1 lb bag of M & M's
take them out and count them.
Do you think that the four of you will get exact same number.
You will get a number in the general same ballpark. If you examine
these results over a bunch of attempts you develop a deviation (3%.4%,5%).
If the quantity of whatever you are trying to count is not very large or within the
deviation your results probably are sh*t.
(62K - 59K)/122K * 100
He won end of story but you see the dilemna.
P.S The graph is a result of electoral collge votes not popular vote. You can
win by electoral and still not win popular vote.
-
Title: Is There Any Doubt
Post by: xmedia2004 on September 20, 2005, 09:35:00 PM
-
QUOTE
PuckSR couldnt find his own arse in an arse kicking competition.
Dude, i admitted you were right, and that i was far from an expert on the subject of economics, and you shit on me. I will stay away from economics, and you leave anything else involving math alone.
Dude I am sorry I couldnt help myself from making that comment seeing as how daman mentioned you name.
But you got to admit it was pretty funny, beside statecowboy has recieved most of my sarcasm.
Forgive me.
-
Title: Is There Any Doubt
Post by: xmedia2004 on September 20, 2005, 10:29:00 PM
-
Electoral college is from slave mentality days when the New British thought that
no one could make an educated decision as well as they could. So we make electoral college. They elect the Pres & VP not the people. Electoral college is not obligated to cast there vote in accordance with popular vote. And most of the time they conform to popular vote. Hence the lack of concern from the flock.
I believe the popular vote is all that matters hence DEMOCRACY, elected by people with mandatory electronic ballots nationwide.
Mathematically you can win a few key states with a large number of electoral votes and lose in 40 states and still win election.
THIS IS WHY POLITCIANS ONLY VISIT CERTAIN STATES. Fla, Cali
1) People make mistakes, if you dont believe me read the Newbie section for an
hour or two.
2) A poll is an experiment. An attempt to determine some outcome based
upon assumptions and numerical analysis. (i.e. Let me see all white people
are republicans live in suburbs and watch friends, basically an educated guess
based upon sterortypes.
3) An election is an documented event, with a basis in fact. Rudy goes to poll and
votes for A. The collection and interpretation of election data is in some states
an experiment.
The vast majority of the US does not vote 2004 had the highest turnout in recent history. And still like on 50 - 60% of US voted.
There are like 240 million people in US
You Sounds like your buddy in other thread with " Prisons are full of BLACK people" comment when prison poplulation is 2x population of negroes in US.
Evidently it is not filled with only black people
MATH is not REPUBLICAN or DEMOCRAT it is truth.
Standard deviation is math term used to describe the accuracy of a process whether mechanical (i.e are all holes 3 inches), or statistical(noise in data collection from error) within some acceptable limit.
Ideally 100% of votes are counted mistake free but that is impossible. You do realize people actually count ballots by hand and eye in most states.
We know that there were errors and there will always be errors because we are only human.
Engineers have a saying that "if you design something fool proof nature will
design a better fool"
Tell you what take a quarter flip it into the air Heads or Tails 50/50 right.
Do it 2x then 10x then 50x then 1000x then 10000000x. Graph the occurance of tails vs heads for the given number of attempts. Will it always be 50 %??? Only two possible outcomes.
P.S. WTF?????
-
Title: Is There Any Doubt
Post by: xmedia2004 on September 21, 2005, 12:28:00 AM
-
122 million votes, if you assume 3 % noise from whatever in the poll results it
is a statistical dead heat 3*1.2 = 3.6 million or about the election margin of victory. 3 % is probably a little conservative.
(+/-) who cares Bush is president.
Read all the politics you want into it I am just stating a mthematical fact.
Actually its the law of averages in that example, the law of large numbers says that if a know x number of things about a random process I can predict an probable outcome of this process if I take a very large number of guesses, The convergeance of the end result based upon the standard deviation is based upon the number of guesses, i.e more geusses smaller standard dev therefore less error in my calculation.
If you are an engineer I hope none of my loved ones never set foot near anything
you and your school/Company designed with that attitude.
You must be an alumini of the New Orleans school of levy design, because you going to get a lot of people dead.
-
Title: Is There Any Doubt
Post by: puckSR on September 21, 2005, 10:10:00 AM
-
That "attitude" deals with the fact that mathematics deals with absolutes, while engineers have to deal with real values. I would love to see you design anything that was ideal.
And what is this about the dykes, they were designed properly. They had fallen into disrepair/needed to be upgraded. Your blaming the engineer when the end-user didnt properly maintain the product. WOW
Im not claiming politics on this
Im claiming that for your assumption to be correct, you would have to either assume a much larger error, or your assuming that all of the error was in favor of one outcome.
The error could be massive, but as long as it was reasonably unbiased, the outcome would still be valid.
Let us go back to your heads/tails argument. IF you flip a coin millions of times, one side will actually come back favored. It is by a small margin, but it will come back as the favored side. (this isnt true, since it would be near impossible to create an unbiased coin flip experiment, but for the purposes of our argument it will work). You are saying that the small difference is negligible, since people cannot count, and they probably just missed a few. I am saying that it is applicable, and that there must be some reason that the coin is slightly favoring one side. You are using error to explain bias, and not including that error should be balanced to some degree, and therefore the bias is still probably a valid statistic.
???? No
Go look it up, i will give you time
Sorry, im a math minor, and an EE. Communication systems frequently make use of statistics and probability. Your definition seems somewhat twisted. You may be trying to restate what i said previously, or you were not clear with how i defined the law. Anyways, your definition is somewhat crap. After the first statement it kind of gets weird.
-
Title: Is There Any Doubt
Post by: xmedia2004 on September 21, 2005, 12:19:00 PM
-
Post by: reidtheweed03 on September 20, 2005, 08:02:00 PM
Post by: xmedia2004 on September 20, 2005, 08:40:00 PM
Bush won by the skin on his teeth. This was the closest election in recent history.
Electoral college is matrix type bull sh*t end of story.
122, 295,345 individuals voted.
62,040,610 voted for Bush
59,028,444 voted for Kerry
The number of physical "counted" votes seperating the two is comparable to the total error of the election process.
In plain English, consider this, you and three friends take a 1 lb bag of M & M's
take them out and count them.
Do you think that the four of you will get exact same number.
You will get a number in the general same ballpark. If you examine
these results over a bunch of attempts you develop a deviation (3%.4%,5%).
If the quantity of whatever you are trying to count is not very large or within the
deviation your results probably are sh*t.
(62K - 59K)/122K * 100
He won end of story but you see the dilemna.
P.S The graph is a result of electoral collge votes not popular vote. You can
win by electoral and still not win popular vote.
Post by: xmedia2004 on September 20, 2005, 09:35:00 PM
QUOTE
QUOTE
PuckSR couldnt find his own arse in an arse kicking competition.
Dude, i admitted you were right, and that i was far from an expert on the subject of economics, and you shit on me. I will stay away from economics, and you leave anything else involving math alone.
Dude I am sorry I couldnt help myself from making that comment seeing as how daman mentioned you name.
But you got to admit it was pretty funny, beside statecowboy has recieved most of my sarcasm.
Forgive me.
Post by: xmedia2004 on September 20, 2005, 10:29:00 PM
QUOTE
Now lets get down something on the elections
You say the electoral college is bullshit
You say the popular vote is too close
What do you recommend oh wise one?
You say the electoral college is bullshit
You say the popular vote is too close
What do you recommend oh wise one?
Electoral college is from slave mentality days when the New British thought that
no one could make an educated decision as well as they could. So we make electoral college. They elect the Pres & VP not the people. Electoral college is not obligated to cast there vote in accordance with popular vote. And most of the time they conform to popular vote. Hence the lack of concern from the flock.
I believe the popular vote is all that matters hence DEMOCRACY, elected by people with mandatory electronic ballots nationwide.
Mathematically you can win a few key states with a large number of electoral votes and lose in 40 states and still win election.
THIS IS WHY POLITCIANS ONLY VISIT CERTAIN STATES. Fla, Cali
QUOTE
What friends do you have that cannot count a bag of M&Ms properly?
Your explanantion of a deviation is somewhat right, but your forgetting something, first your assuming that people cannot count properly. A deviation example is more properly applied to an experiment or a random sequence. Polls often use this since they are based on a sample. And since samples are not accurate representation of the true population, they will vary.
Your explanantion of a deviation is somewhat right, but your forgetting something, first your assuming that people cannot count properly. A deviation example is more properly applied to an experiment or a random sequence. Polls often use this since they are based on a sample. And since samples are not accurate representation of the true population, they will vary.
1) People make mistakes, if you dont believe me read the Newbie section for an
hour or two.
2) A poll is an experiment. An attempt to determine some outcome based
upon assumptions and numerical analysis. (i.e. Let me see all white people
are republicans live in suburbs and watch friends, basically an educated guess
based upon sterortypes.
3) An election is an documented event, with a basis in fact. Rudy goes to poll and
votes for A. The collection and interpretation of election data is in some states
an experiment.
QUOTE
This was an election, and it was open to everyone. Basically they surveyed the entire population. You do not have deviation when you sample the entire population.
The vast majority of the US does not vote 2004 had the highest turnout in recent history. And still like on 50 - 60% of US voted.
QUOTE
122, 295,345 individuals voted.
62,040,610 voted for Bush
59,028,444 voted for Kerry
62,040,610 voted for Bush
59,028,444 voted for Kerry
There are like 240 million people in US
QUOTE
Not to shit bricks on your parade, but your analogy is well.. shit.
You Sounds like your buddy in other thread with " Prisons are full of BLACK people" comment when prison poplulation is 2x population of negroes in US.
Evidently it is not filled with only black people
MATH is not REPUBLICAN or DEMOCRAT it is truth.
QUOTE
You are comparing standard deviation, to sample error, when neither should be used.
Standard deviation is math term used to describe the accuracy of a process whether mechanical (i.e are all holes 3 inches), or statistical(noise in data collection from error) within some acceptable limit.
Ideally 100% of votes are counted mistake free but that is impossible. You do realize people actually count ballots by hand and eye in most states.
QUOTE
You are trying to say that the vote count on the election has some error. This would mean that a sample of the entire population was used.
We know that there were errors and there will always be errors because we are only human.
Engineers have a saying that "if you design something fool proof nature will
design a better fool"
QUOTE
If it is a blind sample, then the error should be universal for all sides. Statistics says that even if there existed error in the polling process, that error would effect all possible outcomes equally. All you could argue is that the error changes the total effective participants, but should not change the ratio of difference significantly.
Tell you what take a quarter flip it into the air Heads or Tails 50/50 right.
Do it 2x then 10x then 50x then 1000x then 10000000x. Graph the occurance of tails vs heads for the given number of attempts. Will it always be 50 %??? Only two possible outcomes.
P.S. WTF?????
QUOTE
If it is a blind sample, then the error should be universal for all sides. Statistics says that even if there existed error in the polling process, that error would effect all possible outcomes equally. All you could argue is that the error changes the total effective participants, but should not change the ratio of difference significantly.
Post by: xmedia2004 on September 21, 2005, 12:28:00 AM
QUOTE
True, but my point, which you completely missed, is that unless there was a 3 million vote biased error, and instead only an error of 3 million, then the numbers are still good. Error would occur on both sides, thus balancing each other out. Your trying to make the claim that 3 million votes were incorrectly given to Bush, while 0 were incorrectly given to Kerry.
122 million votes, if you assume 3 % noise from whatever in the poll results it
is a statistical dead heat 3*1.2 = 3.6 million or about the election margin of victory. 3 % is probably a little conservative.
(+/-) who cares Bush is president.
Read all the politics you want into it I am just stating a mthematical fact.
QUOTE
Have you ever heard of the "law of large numbers". The more times you do this experiment, the closer the results will be to the actual probability. If you do it 10 times, i would actually be suprised if you got 50%, if you do it 10^9 times, you should have something very close to 50%, else your experiment is flawed.
Actually its the law of averages in that example, the law of large numbers says that if a know x number of things about a random process I can predict an probable outcome of this process if I take a very large number of guesses, The convergeance of the end result based upon the standard deviation is based upon the number of guesses, i.e more geusses smaller standard dev therefore less error in my calculation.
QUOTE
Math is my game, and engineers have an even better saying. "It only needs to be close enough for all practical purposes"
If you are an engineer I hope none of my loved ones never set foot near anything
you and your school/Company designed with that attitude.
You must be an alumini of the New Orleans school of levy design, because you going to get a lot of people dead.
Post by: puckSR on September 21, 2005, 10:10:00 AM
QUOTE
If you are an engineer I hope none of my loved ones never set foot near anything
you and your school/Company designed with that attitude.
You must be an alumini of the New Orleans school of levy design, because you going to get a lot of people dead.
you and your school/Company designed with that attitude.
You must be an alumini of the New Orleans school of levy design, because you going to get a lot of people dead.
That "attitude" deals with the fact that mathematics deals with absolutes, while engineers have to deal with real values. I would love to see you design anything that was ideal.
And what is this about the dykes, they were designed properly. They had fallen into disrepair/needed to be upgraded. Your blaming the engineer when the end-user didnt properly maintain the product. WOW
QUOTE
122 million votes, if you assume 3 % noise from whatever in the poll results it
is a statistical dead heat 3*1.2 = 3.6 million or about the election margin of victory. 3 % is probably a little conservative.
(+/-) who cares Bush is president.
Read all the politics you want into it I am just stating a mthematical fact.
is a statistical dead heat 3*1.2 = 3.6 million or about the election margin of victory. 3 % is probably a little conservative.
(+/-) who cares Bush is president.
Read all the politics you want into it I am just stating a mthematical fact.
Im not claiming politics on this
Im claiming that for your assumption to be correct, you would have to either assume a much larger error, or your assuming that all of the error was in favor of one outcome.
The error could be massive, but as long as it was reasonably unbiased, the outcome would still be valid.
Let us go back to your heads/tails argument. IF you flip a coin millions of times, one side will actually come back favored. It is by a small margin, but it will come back as the favored side. (this isnt true, since it would be near impossible to create an unbiased coin flip experiment, but for the purposes of our argument it will work). You are saying that the small difference is negligible, since people cannot count, and they probably just missed a few. I am saying that it is applicable, and that there must be some reason that the coin is slightly favoring one side. You are using error to explain bias, and not including that error should be balanced to some degree, and therefore the bias is still probably a valid statistic.
QUOTE
Actually its the law of averages in that example, the law of large numbers says that if a know x number of things about a random process I can predict an probable outcome of this process if I take a very large number of guesses, The convergeance of the end result based upon the standard deviation is based upon the number of guesses, i.e more geusses smaller standard dev therefore less error in my calculation.
???? No
Go look it up, i will give you time
Sorry, im a math minor, and an EE. Communication systems frequently make use of statistics and probability. Your definition seems somewhat twisted. You may be trying to restate what i said previously, or you were not clear with how i defined the law. Anyways, your definition is somewhat crap. After the first statement it kind of gets weird.
Post by: xmedia2004 on September 21, 2005, 12:19:00 PM
QUOTE(puckSR @ Sep 21 2005, 06:30 PM)
Oh, and im using the word bias to describe a skew in the results.
-
Title: Is There Any Doubt
Post by: xmedia2004 on September 21, 2005, 12:50:00 PM
-
If you win California, Fla, Tx by a total of three votes thats nearly 100 electoral
votes secured with a whopping 3 vote margin of victory. I believe 238 needed
to win thats nearly 50 %.
Which in theory means you could win and not get popular vote. Which has happened once before.
You dont see this as a problem.
Comparing a footbal game an event with 200-300 participants to an election with 122 Million participants seems a little lacking dont you think.
-
Title: Is There Any Doubt
Post by: xmedia2004 on September 21, 2005, 01:57:00 PM
-
Post by: xmedia2004 on September 21, 2005, 12:50:00 PM
QUOTE
You think they dominate because of all the electoral votes that they have, but the electoral votes are given to them based on population. The same states would dominate if we went with popular vote or electoral college
If you win California, Fla, Tx by a total of three votes thats nearly 100 electoral
votes secured with a whopping 3 vote margin of victory. I believe 238 needed
to win thats nearly 50 %.
Which in theory means you could win and not get popular vote. Which has happened once before.
You dont see this as a problem.
Comparing a footbal game an event with 200-300 participants to an election with 122 Million participants seems a little lacking dont you think.
Post by: xmedia2004 on September 21, 2005, 01:57:00 PM
QUOTE(puckSR @ Sep 21 2005, 09:28 PM)
no i think the football analogy is good
-
Title: Is There Any Doubt
Post by: xmedia2004 on September 21, 2005, 03:26:00 PM
-
No get rid of the electoral college
The point is still that no matter how you do it, Fl, Tx, Ny, and Cal are going to be HUGE factors in an election, and south dakota wont matter.
You still don get it. No electoral college means my vote in wherever is the same as your vote in wherever periodd poin blank.
It is nearly half of what is needed to win 200 and something
I Said math doesnt lie. But people make mistakes in there interpretation of imperical/scientific data.
If 5 people live in Tx with 20 electoral votes, A gets 3 and B gets 2, A gets 20 votes, and essentially 2 votes are thrown out it. I cant make it more simplier than that for you.
The electoral colloge is out dated.
-
Title: Is There Any Doubt
Post by: puckSR on September 21, 2005, 03:45:00 PM
-
Im not completely opposed to the idea of the popular vote
Im saying that
1) it wouldnt change much
2) the past popular vote doesnt matter
3) You have twisted your stuff way too much to be constructive
a)I didnt say the vote had error, you did
b)You "corrected" my usage of the Law of large numbers, I WAS RIGHT
c)You accused me of claiming that the "math was political", i didnt say anything like that
This all started from you claiming that Bush hadnt really won the popular vote; he did. You claimed that error nullified the results, it doesnt. You claimed that the only reason that Halliburton got the La job was cronyism, it isnt.
Quit making claims and then changing them
The one that pissed me off the most was your claim about error in elections, and then trying to insult me for using your claim to justify my answer.
-
Title: Is There Any Doubt
Post by: xmedia2004 on September 21, 2005, 03:55:00 PM
-
Numbers dont lie.
We have a saying at Bechtel.
" Minds are like concrete, very much mixed up and set in. "
-
Title: Is There Any Doubt
Post by: xmedia2004 on September 22, 2005, 02:32:00 AM
-
All you guys do on this forum is repeat sterotypes and propaganda. For which there is no practical or statistical proof. For instance white women are kidnapped more than asian women, may or may not be true but you can look up the figures at the DOJ and find the NUMBERS.
The Law of Averages is a lay term used to express the view that eventually, everything "evens out." This principle is supported by the Law of large numbers
In probability and statistics, the Standard Deviation is the most commonly used measure of statistical dispersion. Simply put, it measures how spread out the values in a data set are.
The importance of the standard deviation arises from Chebyshev's theorem, which asserts that in any data set, nearly all of the values will be close to the mean value, where the meaning of "close to" is specified by the standard deviation (i.e although you and your friends may not get same number of M&M's in the 1lb bag the accuracy of each individual count is reflected in S.D. )
The Case Against the Electoral College
By Steven Hill and Rob Richie
November 9, 2000
USA Today
Hamiltons Logic for Electoral College
Basically he thinks IDIOTS like yourself's vote shouldn't matter. Becuase you cant be trusted to make an educated decision.
If he only knew..
-
Title: Is There Any Doubt
Post by: xmedia2004 on September 22, 2005, 03:00:00 AM
-
Post by: xmedia2004 on September 21, 2005, 03:26:00 PM
QUOTE
If your suggesting splitting the electoral college votes to more adequately represent the votes of the people, then some states have already beaten you to it.
No get rid of the electoral college
The point is still that no matter how you do it, Fl, Tx, Ny, and Cal are going to be HUGE factors in an election, and south dakota wont matter.
You still don get it. No electoral college means my vote in wherever is the same as your vote in wherever periodd poin blank.
QUOTE
538 electoral votes, so 116 is not half
It is nearly half of what is needed to win 200 and something
I Said math doesnt lie. But people make mistakes in there interpretation of imperical/scientific data.
If 5 people live in Tx with 20 electoral votes, A gets 3 and B gets 2, A gets 20 votes, and essentially 2 votes are thrown out it. I cant make it more simplier than that for you.
The electoral colloge is out dated.
Post by: puckSR on September 21, 2005, 03:45:00 PM
Im saying that
1) it wouldnt change much
2) the past popular vote doesnt matter
3) You have twisted your stuff way too much to be constructive
a)I didnt say the vote had error, you did
b)You "corrected" my usage of the Law of large numbers, I WAS RIGHT
c)You accused me of claiming that the "math was political", i didnt say anything like that
This all started from you claiming that Bush hadnt really won the popular vote; he did. You claimed that error nullified the results, it doesnt. You claimed that the only reason that Halliburton got the La job was cronyism, it isnt.
Quit making claims and then changing them
The one that pissed me off the most was your claim about error in elections, and then trying to insult me for using your claim to justify my answer.
Post by: xmedia2004 on September 21, 2005, 03:55:00 PM
Numbers dont lie.
We have a saying at Bechtel.
" Minds are like concrete, very much mixed up and set in. "
Post by: xmedia2004 on September 22, 2005, 02:32:00 AM
QUOTE
No numbers dont lie, and neither do words
But if someone puts them in the wrong order, then a lie exists.
Besides, why do you keep mentioning numbers. You havent even used many numbers
But if someone puts them in the wrong order, then a lie exists.
Besides, why do you keep mentioning numbers. You havent even used many numbers
All you guys do on this forum is repeat sterotypes and propaganda. For which there is no practical or statistical proof. For instance white women are kidnapped more than asian women, may or may not be true but you can look up the figures at the DOJ and find the NUMBERS.
The Law of Averages is a lay term used to express the view that eventually, everything "evens out." This principle is supported by the Law of large numbers
In probability and statistics, the Standard Deviation is the most commonly used measure of statistical dispersion. Simply put, it measures how spread out the values in a data set are.
The importance of the standard deviation arises from Chebyshev's theorem, which asserts that in any data set, nearly all of the values will be close to the mean value, where the meaning of "close to" is specified by the standard deviation (i.e although you and your friends may not get same number of M&M's in the 1lb bag the accuracy of each individual count is reflected in S.D. )
QUOTE
All in all, you have claimed that the popular election results are misleading several times, and then chastised me for using error in my argument.
The Case Against the Electoral College
By Steven Hill and Rob Richie
November 9, 2000
QUOTE
But the simplicity of the Florida drama is far different from our bizarre rules to elect the president. Democrat Al Gore won more votes than Republican George Bush in the national popular vote. But Bush may be on his way to the White House.
The Electoral College is a clumsy device that never would be imitated by a state for electing its governor -- or by a town electing its dogcatcher. It has been the subject of more proposed amendments than any other part of our constitution, but like an appendix, we keep it because it hasn't ruptured... yet
The perverse incentives created by the Electoral College are painfully obvious from this year's campaign. Most states are effectively ignored by the candidates, as they are seen as non- competitive.
The Electoral College's democratic deficit is compounded by the use of plurality elections -- ones where the candidate with the most votes wins, even if less than a majority. Plurality elections mean that a popular majority can be fractured by the presence of a third party candidate
The Electoral College is a clumsy device that never would be imitated by a state for electing its governor -- or by a town electing its dogcatcher. It has been the subject of more proposed amendments than any other part of our constitution, but like an appendix, we keep it because it hasn't ruptured... yet
The perverse incentives created by the Electoral College are painfully obvious from this year's campaign. Most states are effectively ignored by the candidates, as they are seen as non- competitive.
The Electoral College's democratic deficit is compounded by the use of plurality elections -- ones where the candidate with the most votes wins, even if less than a majority. Plurality elections mean that a popular majority can be fractured by the presence of a third party candidate
USA Today
QUOTE
Some senators propose awarding electoral votes in states in proportion to the candidates' share of the vote. Others support amendments to ensure that if no candidate wins an electoral-vote majority, voters would pick the winners in a second-round runoff election.
But direct election is the only viable solution. Any intellectual arguments in favor of the Electoral College collapse in the face of most people's visceral reaction against the presidency going to a candidate whom they understandably regard as having lost the contest.
But direct election is the only viable solution. Any intellectual arguments in favor of the Electoral College collapse in the face of most people's visceral reaction against the presidency going to a candidate whom they understandably regard as having lost the contest.
QUOTE
One aspect of the electoral system that is not mandated in the constitution is the fact that the winner takes all the votes in the state. Therefore it makes no difference if you win a state by 50.1% or by 80% of the vote you receive the same number of electoral votes. This can be a receipe for one individual to win some states by large pluralities and lose others by small number of votes, and thus this is an easy scenario for one candidate winning the popular vote while another winning the electoral vote.This winner take all methods used in picking electors has been decided by the states themselves. This trend took place over the course of the 19th century.
Hamiltons Logic for Electoral College
QUOTE
It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.
Basically he thinks IDIOTS like yourself's vote shouldn't matter. Becuase you cant be trusted to make an educated decision.
If he only knew..
Post by: xmedia2004 on September 22, 2005, 03:00:00 AM
QUOTE(puckSR @ Sep 22 2005, 06:06 AM)
No numbers dont lie, and neither do words
-
Title: Is There Any Doubt
Post by: xmedia2004 on September 22, 2005, 03:50:00 AM
-
Post by: xmedia2004 on September 22, 2005, 03:50:00 AM
QUOTE(damam @ Sep 19 2005, 05:38 PM)
Any way you put it, cheney has no financial interest in halliburton. The Feds define a conflict of interest as an employee being able to gain or lose money based on their position. Cheney can neither gain nor lose. He has either insured himself from it or given it away.
-
Title: Is There Any Doubt
Post by: reidtheweed03 on September 22, 2005, 05:18:00 AM
-
bill clinton
-
Title: Is There Any Doubt
Post by: Ween311 on September 22, 2005, 08:25:00 AM
-
Your information on Cheney and Halliburton is just plain wrong. I suggest you do a little research. I'll make it easy for you.
Fact Check
-
Title: Is There Any Doubt
Post by: damam on September 22, 2005, 10:59:00 AM
-
ohhh the irony
I have already addressed all of that from your last quote about deferred salary and holdings. Currently, he is totally insured from the fate of haliburton. Whether they tank or go mega huge makes no difference to him financially. Unless you have a crystal ball, the rest of your arguement here is pure speculation.
all govt agencies bid in this way regardless of contract amount.
while this raises suspicion - it is not nearly enough to do anything with. The entire point of the CPI investigation was to prove cronyism, and they failed to do it. The only thing they really proved was that LOGCAP heavily favours the incumbant for legit reasons, which in turn lessens suspicion that anything above amounts to anything because it is predicted regardless of who is in office.
was not no bid as already pointed out. Anything under logcap can be given to hali because they already won a recognized competitive bid.
And if they do go up - administrator of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy under Clinton steven kelman explains:
and that all falls under the Army - I suppose he just being naive as well . . .
Really, if you want to attack somthing attack logcap itself. it is deeply flawed and two administrations have failed to fix it while fully understanding the problems inherent in the system. But you cant do that without blaming both dems and repubs because they are all responsible.
PS this is my last post on this topic unless new info is added - its getting circular . . . Look all you want at hali-chaney, find something, sue the pants off of them, make a fortune, and then come back here and rub it in my face. I wish you luck cause no one has done it to date.
-
Title: Is There Any Doubt
Post by: xmedia2004 on September 22, 2005, 12:20:00 PM
-
Actually, you presented a document signed some time after he became VP stating he would give to charity 433,000 stock options which he stated on National Press he did not have.
Its kind of convienent how you just disregard whatever doesnt support your point of view.
ExCEO of General Electric nearly got Federal Indictment over nearly exact samething
I would think the statements of the Congressional Research Service would carry some legitamacy. These statements are binding legal documents and any misinforamtion subject to perjury.
DISREGARDED
Chaney was on Meet the Press denying the stock option he signed away some considerable time after he became V.P.
DISREGARDED
This alone is grounds for impeachment hearings to be blunt.
LOGCAP is history although does show no bid contracts awarded to a contractor that contributed a lot of money to campaign fund of president past and future.
From what I can find Hally has only competitively won one LOGACP contract.
and none since its exCEO became VP
DISREGARDED
Why does Chaney recieve a salary from Hally larger that VP.
DISREGARDED
But I guess this is all about Republican/Democrat bullshit in you eyes. Since you keep pulling up Clinton from to deflect Hally critiscism.
Actually experience, but key word in that sentence is BID
Those that do not know history are destined to repeat it.
-
Title: Is There Any Doubt
Post by: xmedia2004 on September 22, 2005, 12:25:00 PM
-
Post by: reidtheweed03 on September 22, 2005, 05:18:00 AM
Post by: Ween311 on September 22, 2005, 08:25:00 AM
Fact Check
Post by: damam on September 22, 2005, 10:59:00 AM
QUOTE(xmedia2004 @ Sep 21 2005, 10:43 PM)
All you guys do on this forum is repeat sterotypes and propaganda.
ohhh the ironyI have already addressed all of that from your last quote about deferred salary and holdings. Currently, he is totally insured from the fate of haliburton. Whether they tank or go mega huge makes no difference to him financially. Unless you have a crystal ball, the rest of your arguement here is pure speculation.
QUOTE
The engines and the nuclear reactor of a Los Angelas Class submarine is probably a larger line item than all 3 above. Point is DOD/DOE is a different beast entirely.
all govt agencies bid in this way regardless of contract amount.
QUOTE
You cant refute the following:
1) Halliburton isnt the only big oil construction firm.
2) Halliburton isn't exactly a leader in its particular sector.
4) Haiburton has seen a large increase in profits over the last few years
5) The two largest campaign contributors to Bush/Cheney have recieved largest profits from "War on Terror"
1) Halliburton isnt the only big oil construction firm.
2) Halliburton isn't exactly a leader in its particular sector.
4) Haiburton has seen a large increase in profits over the last few years
5) The two largest campaign contributors to Bush/Cheney have recieved largest profits from "War on Terror"
while this raises suspicion - it is not nearly enough to do anything with. The entire point of the CPI investigation was to prove cronyism, and they failed to do it. The only thing they really proved was that LOGCAP heavily favours the incumbant for legit reasons, which in turn lessens suspicion that anything above amounts to anything because it is predicted regardless of who is in office.
QUOTE
3) Halliburton has recieved NO BID contracts which were subsequently expanded20x original dolar value.
was not no bid as already pointed out. Anything under logcap can be given to hali because they already won a recognized competitive bid.
And if they do go up - administrator of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy under Clinton steven kelman explains:
QUOTE(administrator of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy under Clinton steven kelman explains)
If Iraqi contracting fails, it will be because of poorly structured contracts or lack of good contract management -- not because of cronyism in the awarding process.
and that all falls under the Army - I suppose he just being naive as well . . .
Really, if you want to attack somthing attack logcap itself. it is deeply flawed and two administrations have failed to fix it while fully understanding the problems inherent in the system. But you cant do that without blaming both dems and repubs because they are all responsible.
PS this is my last post on this topic unless new info is added - its getting circular . . . Look all you want at hali-chaney, find something, sue the pants off of them, make a fortune, and then come back here and rub it in my face. I wish you luck cause no one has done it to date.
Post by: xmedia2004 on September 22, 2005, 12:20:00 PM
QUOTE
I have already addressed all of that from your last quote about deferred salary and holdings. Currently, he is totally insured from the fate of haliburton. Whether they tank or go mega huge makes no difference to him financially. Unless you have a crystal ball, the rest of your arguement here is pure speculation
Actually, you presented a document signed some time after he became VP stating he would give to charity 433,000 stock options which he stated on National Press he did not have.
Its kind of convienent how you just disregard whatever doesnt support your point of view.
ExCEO of General Electric nearly got Federal Indictment over nearly exact samething
I would think the statements of the Congressional Research Service would carry some legitamacy. These statements are binding legal documents and any misinforamtion subject to perjury.
DISREGARDED
Chaney was on Meet the Press denying the stock option he signed away some considerable time after he became V.P.
DISREGARDED
This alone is grounds for impeachment hearings to be blunt.
LOGCAP is history although does show no bid contracts awarded to a contractor that contributed a lot of money to campaign fund of president past and future.
From what I can find Hally has only competitively won one LOGACP contract.
and none since its exCEO became VP
DISREGARDED
QUOTE
Currently, he is totally insured from the fate of haliburton. Whether they tank or go mega huge makes no difference to him financially.
Why does Chaney recieve a salary from Hally larger that VP.
DISREGARDED
QUOTE
it is deeply flawed and two administrations have failed to fix it while fully understanding the problems inherent in the system. But you cant do that without blaming both dems and repubs because they are all responsible.
But I guess this is all about Republican/Democrat bullshit in you eyes. Since you keep pulling up Clinton from to deflect Hally critiscism.
QUOTE
Unless you have a crystal ball, the rest of your arguement here is pure speculation all govt agencies bid in this way regardless of contract amount.
Actually experience, but key word in that sentence is BID
QUOTE
Unless you have a crystal ball, the rest of your arguement here is pure speculation
Those that do not know history are destined to repeat it.
Post by: xmedia2004 on September 22, 2005, 12:25:00 PM
QUOTE(Ween311 @ Sep 22 2005, 04:36 PM)
Your information on Cheney and Halliburton is just plain wrong. I suggest you do a little research. I'll make it easy for you.
-
Title: Is There Any Doubt
Post by: damam on September 22, 2005, 05:03:00 PM
-
[sigh]
legal doc for stock options - signed jan 18, 2001
as of the a couple days before becoming vp he no longer had control of them and was not tied in any way to them. He will neither profit or lose by their fate, and he has absolutely no way of getting them back. Again this was already addressed.
deferred payment plan legal doc - signed dec 18, 1998
again already addressed. It pays him out over a 5 year period starting in 2000. And face it - in 1998 bush was anything but a sure bet as prez.
Cheneys insurance policy legal doc - signed jan 20, 2001
this is what insulates cheney from anything that occurs to hali - they tank he still gets paid - they profit he does not see anything extra - his pay stays the same
OFFICE OF GOVERNMENT ETHICS - Source
Chaney does not stand to gain or lose anything with hali - there is no conflict of interest.
What you posted were the views of Mr. LAUTENBERG during a debate on NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE REFORM ACT, which i am sure he believed to be true and are not legally binding. It does not mean they are true as legally binding documents have proven otherwise. The only thing conclusive in the analysis done by the Congressional Research Service was that cheney must report his defered earnings and stock options still held in his name regardless as to whether or not he has control over them or they have been gifted away: which he does other wise none of us would have so much detail on how much he has.
Again this was dealt with
again not disregarded and already addressed
Meet the press interview occured on Sept. 14, 2003, as the documents posted above clearly show he had severed ties well before that.
they have won two through comptetive bidding processes - one 1992 and one in 2002. They were awarded a split logcap even though they lost by clinton in 1997. We can agree to disagree about what constitutes a legit bid. The only thing I will say is that under your bid def the vast majority (well over 90%) of govt bids since JFK in the 60's are not competitively bid across all dept.
hes a better negotiator? The pres of hally is gay and though cheney was hotter? I have no idea. I know that i was paid nerely 15% more than my peers at my last job and i had the same if not less experience. The only reason my peers could come up with was my bootay. Not that i am denying that asset, I am also a good interviewer and have a very good work history as well. So take your pick. Whatever you got - work it.
And again, when cheney was hired the idea of a repub being prez was anything but a sure bet. the country was boomin and everybody loved clinton in the US and world wide. I can see them hiring him for defense contacts and paying more for that, but to suggest that years down the road he would be VP? Thats ludicrous.
in many ways yes. but in order to demonstrate what your trying to do, you also have to show that it in all likelyhood would not have occured otherwise. By showing that this is a trend across administrations of opposing parties it moves the arguement towards a flaw in the system. Not a flaw in cheney. I am sure that hally understands the power of the incumbant in their situation, and I hold nothing against them for exploiting that flaw to its fullest extent. And i am sure that any other corp would do exactly the same thing. I do hold clinton/bush responsible for not fixing it which no one (repub, dem, cpi, left, right, neutral, other contractors, etc) seems to be interested in doing.
Maybe its a hegelian dialect perpertrated by gore
the future
You cant prove it will, I cant prove it wont. So why argue about it?
-
Title: Is There Any Doubt
Post by: xmedia2004 on September 22, 2005, 05:55:00 PM
-
Post by: damam on September 22, 2005, 05:03:00 PM
QUOTE(xmedia2004 @ Sep 22 2005, 08:31 AM)
Actually, you presented a document signed some time after he became VP stating he would give to charity 433,000 stock options which he stated on National Press he did not have.
Its kind of convienent how you just disregard whatever doesnt support your point of view.
Its kind of convienent how you just disregard whatever doesnt support your point of view.
[sigh]
legal doc for stock options - signed jan 18, 2001
as of the a couple days before becoming vp he no longer had control of them and was not tied in any way to them. He will neither profit or lose by their fate, and he has absolutely no way of getting them back. Again this was already addressed.
deferred payment plan legal doc - signed dec 18, 1998
again already addressed. It pays him out over a 5 year period starting in 2000. And face it - in 1998 bush was anything but a sure bet as prez.
Cheneys insurance policy legal doc - signed jan 20, 2001
this is what insulates cheney from anything that occurs to hali - they tank he still gets paid - they profit he does not see anything extra - his pay stays the same
QUOTE(INTERPRETATION @ EXEMPTIONS AND WAIVER GUIDANCE CONCERNING)
Disqualifying financial interests. For purposes of 18 U.S.C. 208(a) and this part, the term financial interest means the potential for gain or loss to the employee, or other person specified in section 208, as a result of governmental action on the particular matter. The disqualifying financial interest might arise from ownership of certain financial instruments or investments such as stock, bonds, mutual funds, or real estate. Additionally, a disqualifying financial interest might derive from a salary, indebtedness, job offer, or any similar interest that may be affected by the matter.
OFFICE OF GOVERNMENT ETHICS - Source
Chaney does not stand to gain or lose anything with hali - there is no conflict of interest.
QUOTE
I would think the statements of the Congressional Research Service would carry some legitamacy. These statements are binding legal documents and any misinforamtion subject to perjury.
DISREGARDED
DISREGARDED
What you posted were the views of Mr. LAUTENBERG during a debate on NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE REFORM ACT, which i am sure he believed to be true and are not legally binding. It does not mean they are true as legally binding documents have proven otherwise. The only thing conclusive in the analysis done by the Congressional Research Service was that cheney must report his defered earnings and stock options still held in his name regardless as to whether or not he has control over them or they have been gifted away: which he does other wise none of us would have so much detail on how much he has.
Again this was dealt with
QUOTE
Chaney was on Meet the Press denying the stock option he signed away some considerable time after he became V.P.
DISREGARDED
This alone is grounds for impeachment hearings to be blunt.
DISREGARDED
This alone is grounds for impeachment hearings to be blunt.
again not disregarded and already addressed
Meet the press interview occured on Sept. 14, 2003, as the documents posted above clearly show he had severed ties well before that.
QUOTE
LOGCAP is history although does show no bid contracts awarded to a contractor that contributed a lot of money to campaign fund of president past and future.
From what I can find Hally has only competitively won one LOGACP contract.
and none since its exCEO became VP
DISREGARDED
From what I can find Hally has only competitively won one LOGACP contract.
and none since its exCEO became VP
DISREGARDED
they have won two through comptetive bidding processes - one 1992 and one in 2002. They were awarded a split logcap even though they lost by clinton in 1997. We can agree to disagree about what constitutes a legit bid. The only thing I will say is that under your bid def the vast majority (well over 90%) of govt bids since JFK in the 60's are not competitively bid across all dept.
QUOTE
Why does Chaney recieve a salary from Hally larger that VP.
DISREGARDED
DISREGARDED
hes a better negotiator? The pres of hally is gay and though cheney was hotter? I have no idea. I know that i was paid nerely 15% more than my peers at my last job and i had the same if not less experience. The only reason my peers could come up with was my bootay. Not that i am denying that asset, I am also a good interviewer and have a very good work history as well. So take your pick. Whatever you got - work it.
And again, when cheney was hired the idea of a repub being prez was anything but a sure bet. the country was boomin and everybody loved clinton in the US and world wide. I can see them hiring him for defense contacts and paying more for that, but to suggest that years down the road he would be VP? Thats ludicrous.
QUOTE
But I guess this is all about Republican/Democrat bullshit in you eyes. Since you keep pulling up Clinton from to deflect Hally critiscism.
in many ways yes. but in order to demonstrate what your trying to do, you also have to show that it in all likelyhood would not have occured otherwise. By showing that this is a trend across administrations of opposing parties it moves the arguement towards a flaw in the system. Not a flaw in cheney. I am sure that hally understands the power of the incumbant in their situation, and I hold nothing against them for exploiting that flaw to its fullest extent. And i am sure that any other corp would do exactly the same thing. I do hold clinton/bush responsible for not fixing it which no one (repub, dem, cpi, left, right, neutral, other contractors, etc) seems to be interested in doing.
Maybe its a hegelian dialect perpertrated by gore
the future
You cant prove it will, I cant prove it wont. So why argue about it?
Post by: xmedia2004 on September 22, 2005, 05:55:00 PM
QUOTE(puckSR @ Sep 23 2005, 01:12 AM)
Alright, you figured out that we can look anything up.
-
Title: Is There Any Doubt
Post by: damam on September 22, 2005, 05:56:00 PM
-
Post by: damam on September 22, 2005, 05:56:00 PM
QUOTE(puckSR @ Sep 22 2005, 01:40 PM)
Damam, im not making fun of you at all, but do you still have a job.
-
Title: Is There Any Doubt
Post by: xmedia2004 on September 22, 2005, 06:02:00 PM
-
Post by: xmedia2004 on September 22, 2005, 06:02:00 PM
QUOTE(damam @ Sep 23 2005, 01:14 AM)
is this merely an attempt to see how many times you can get me to repost the same stuff????
-
Title: Is There Any Doubt
Post by: xmedia2004 on September 22, 2005, 06:03:00 PM
-
Post by: xmedia2004 on September 22, 2005, 06:03:00 PM
QUOTE(damam @ Sep 23 2005, 02:07 AM)
thanks
-
Title: Is There Any Doubt
Post by: Ween311 on September 22, 2005, 08:43:00 PM
-
And just for your information xmedia, Factcheck.org is probably one of the least biased sites for political information on the internet.
-
Title: Is There Any Doubt
Post by: xmedia2004 on September 26, 2005, 07:30:00 PM
-
-
Title: Is There Any Doubt
Post by: xmedia2004 on September 26, 2005, 07:43:00 PM
-
P.S. Guess who just happens to be the old college roommate of Joe Allbaugh.
Michael Brown, yep the one and only, FEMA director.
Source
-
Title: Is There Any Doubt
Post by: xmedia2004 on September 26, 2005, 07:57:00 PM
-
Post by: Ween311 on September 22, 2005, 08:43:00 PM
Post by: xmedia2004 on September 26, 2005, 07:30:00 PM
QUOTE
NEW YORK (Reuters) - More than 80 percent of the $1.5 billion in contracts signed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency to clean up after Hurricane Katrina were awarded without bidding or with limited competition, the New York Times reported on Monday.
QUOTE
The first detailed tally of commitments from federal agencies since Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast four weeks ago shows more than 15 contracts exceed $100 million, including five of $500 million or more
QUOTE
..questions have been raised about the political connections of two contractors -- the Shaw Group and Kellogg, Brown & Root, a subsidiary of Halliburton that have been represented by lobbyist Joe Allbaugh, President George W. Bush's ex-campaign manager....
QUOTE
Kellogg, Brown & Root, which was given $60 million in contracts, was rebuked by federal auditors for unsubstantiated billing from the Iraq reconstruction and criticized for bills like $100-per-bag laundry service.
Post by: xmedia2004 on September 26, 2005, 07:43:00 PM
Michael Brown, yep the one and only, FEMA director.
Source
Post by: xmedia2004 on September 26, 2005, 07:57:00 PM
QUOTE(puckSR @ Sep 27 2005, 03:53 AM)
Im going to ask you a question xmedia
-
Title: Is There Any Doubt
Post by: xmedia2004 on September 27, 2005, 10:08:00 PM
-
Post by: xmedia2004 on September 27, 2005, 10:08:00 PM
QUOTE(puckSR @ Sep 28 2005, 05:28 AM)
yes, thats wonderful, but i was asking you the question in reference to the civic duties of a government.
-
Title: Is There Any Doubt
Post by: xmedia2004 on September 28, 2005, 02:13:00 AM
-
No
No
The feds should contribute money/aid but La should hold
purse strings....
-
Title: Is There Any Doubt
Post by: xmedia2004 on September 28, 2005, 02:18:00 AM
-
You watch way to much Star Trek......
-
Title: Is There Any Doubt
Post by: xmedia2004 on September 29, 2005, 02:19:00 AM
-
Post by: xmedia2004 on September 28, 2005, 02:13:00 AM
QUOTE
would you rather privatize buearacracy
No
QUOTE
increase government responsibility,
No
QUOTE
allow the government to bid out work?
The feds should contribute money/aid but La should hold
purse strings....
Post by: xmedia2004 on September 28, 2005, 02:18:00 AM
QUOTE
I believe that the decline in open sea piracy since the 1800's has led to an increased global average temperature.
You believe that numbers dont lie right?
You believe that numbers dont lie right?
You watch way to much Star Trek......
Post by: xmedia2004 on September 29, 2005, 02:19:00 AM
QUOTE(puckSR @ Sep 28 2005, 07:28 PM)
dude, i wasnt talking federal v state v local