For My Good Buddy, Taks

[astr0creep]

War has always been really expensive and you don

[alanschu]

I think people would criticize Bush regardless of what he did. If he actually lowered the debt, then his critics would probably complain about him not aggressively pursuing Al-Qaeda or something stupid.

[~Di]

Oh come on. Y'all know that Haliburton is a bright and shiny ode to capitalism. Any attempt to tarnish their good name must surely be a one-sided, partisian hit piece by some commie-sympathizing weenie. Because after all this is the very first time anyone has ever accused our precious Haliburton of taking advantage of political connections, governmental price-gouging, or being handed plum contracts on a no-bid basis... except all those dozens of other similar allegations that have also been made over the past 5 years by various governmental agencies, investigative committees and GAO audits. Still I'm sure all those allegations were totally unfounded, planted by poo-poo head democrats just like Waxman.

 

So I'm just going to plug up my ears and sing, "lalalalalal, I can't HEAR you" at the top of my voice until everyone stops saying bad things about Haliburton. Yes, I love Cheny that much. Got to admire a man who shoots first and calls a press conference later, and who's first name evokes such fear that internet forum filters replace it with ****. Now THAT is the manifestation of true power. Haliburton is merely a tool with which to weild it!

 

:D

Edited March 29, 2006 by ~Di

[WITHTEETH]

I think people would criticize Bush regardless of what he did.  If he actually lowered the debt, then his critics would probably complain about him not aggressively pursuing Al-Qaeda or something stupid.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think people would defend bush regardless of what he did. If he actually did raise or debt, then his praisers would probably praise him about being resolute on hating gays or something stupid.

[taks]

One-sided?  We all know what a bastion of liberal tree-hugging Democrats the Pentagon is.

the article fool.

 

C'mon.  Procurement officers generally don't chat about government contracts with the media, especially to criticize them; you'd know that as well, and, come to think of it, better than me.

they do this crap all the time. irrlevant anyway.

 

I'm really curious who you think is capable of giving an impartial view on this particular matter.  KBR representative, maybe?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

again, the article. as cheney pointed out, this issue was already resolved. perhaps somebody has an axe to grind? (not just you).

 

taks

[taks]

Yes the graph speaks for itself.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

apparently you are unable to listen, then.

 

it isn't a surprise, either, that when mr. clinton was in office he had to deal with a hostile, republican congress. had he had the benefit of democrats in charge of the purse strings, you think things are bad now... holy cow. if hilary's genius pet had passed (health care), we'd all be happy with $9T.

 

bush should've stayed away from the moronic drug bill. if he had, we'd be in much better shape.

 

taks

[Commissar]

But you should, Commie.  For a good reason you should.  If, and I mean if, the attack is politically motivate, it might not be true.  The article does not provide sufficient evidence that the allegations are true.  The idea behind the media is that you evaluate the source of any article, and this article, with the exception of Bunny?  (How could I overlook Bunny, a "news" item from one year ago)  So, they have a single source from today's news and one source who has been the center of controversy from 2005 onward.

That's an awful lot of hedging there, Eldar. You know, I can think of one or two political attacks over the past few years that have been dead-on. One or two things involving Clinton spring to mind.

 

You know, I think it's good that we've got two parties that hate each other, and keep an eye on every single move the other guy makes. If we only had Republicans or Democrats, well...who would regulate them, exactly?

 

Don't even care about the proof, apparently.  The source of an allegation is important in a news article.  If you discredit the source, you discredit the charge.  If this report came from an independent source, I would find it more compelling.

Do you want me to find you independent sources? Name what you consider independent, and I'll dig up a few for you inside twenty minutes. This is hardly the first time this sort of allegation has been made; why are you acting like this is some sort of out-of-the-blue accusation?

 

No, I'm not, Commie.  I'm really not fine with it.  I want to see justice done also.  I just see this article as being completely devoid of worth.  It should have come clean and tried to provide a balanced view.  If Halliburton has carried out the sorts of outrageous excesses Waxman charges against them, then surely an independent source, with appropriate oversight, can confirm this report.  If Halliburton did these things, then I say fry them.  Of course, I said that in my original post.  Hell, I said it twice.

Fry them? Fry them how? The report itself says Halliburton claims to have fixed all of its deficiencies. That in and of itself is an admission of guilt; nobody fixes what isn't broken, right?

 

We'll prosecute the guys at Enron when they screw up big, but because Halliburton's operating overseas, where it's only the guys who get paid to get shot at that're getting plinked, we give them as many passes as they need to get things right? Explain the logic in that.

 

You're not getting what I'm saying.  I'm saying that I'd rather not give Waxman a pass to push his political agenda.  Could he be right?  Sure.  ...But the article is single source, and don't make me laugh by citing the article's one line/last line reference to Bunny.

 

I understand this is an issue for you.  I have two family members overseas right now, one in Afghanistan and one in Iraq.  I have friends overseas.  I don't want Halliburton to get a free pass either.  I don't want any company to get a free pass.  Nonetheless, I don't want to try Halliburton in the center ring of the big tent of the media circus.  Surely, if they've defrauded the public to the extent that all these people allege, there will be evidence.  When that evidence comes in, I won't eat my words.  I'll do what I would have done all along, be glad that justice was done.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The evidence has come. Know how I know? 'Cause the Pentagon's said so, several times. Once again, we're back to you being quite okay with that as long as they promise, hand to God, that they won't do it again.

 

But what's really to stop them? The stiff penalties they faced the last time they did it couldn't possibly be a deterrent, because there weren't any.

[Commissar]

One-sided?  We all know what a bastion of liberal tree-hugging Democrats the Pentagon is.

the article fool.

I love it when you start flaming.

 

again, the article.  as cheney pointed out, this issue was already resolved.  perhaps somebody has an axe to grind?  (not just you).

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm afraid that impartiality bit works both ways, my friend. Forgive me for not taking Cheney's word on matters having to do with resolution of Halliburton's misconduct. Unless, of course, you believed Clinton during the Lewinski scandal.

 

And hey, you're Mr. Truth and Justice. So I'll ask you the same question I asked Eldar: why do they get a pass?

[WITHTEETH]

Yes the graph speaks for itself.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

apparently you are unable to listen, then.

 

it isn't a surprise, either, that when mr. clinton was in office he had to deal with a hostile, republican congress. had he had the benefit of democrats in charge of the purse strings, you think things are bad now... holy cow. if hilary's genius pet had passed (health care), we'd all be happy with $9T.

 

bush should've stayed away from the moronic drug bill. if he had, we'd be in much better shape.

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It isn't a surprise that the republicans keep screwing up the economy each time their in office either taks.

 

Do you need a hug taks?

Edited March 29, 2006 by WITHTEETH

[taks]

I love it when you start flaming.

you're the one with the reading comprehension problem... i clearly stated:

also, d'ya think maybe the article is a bit one-sided?

see?

 

I'm afraid that impartiality bit works both ways, my friend.  Forgive me for not taking Cheney's word on matters having to do with resolution of Halliburton's misconduct.

funny, but wasn't this article led off from the viewpoint of a congressman with a known axe to grind with the whitehouse? you're right, it works both ways. given that the article clearly favors waxman's opinion, and we don't have any other side to the story, the safe route is to actually wait for the evidence. of course, nooo, you need to hop right on the crucifixion bandwagon, don't you?

 

Unless, of course, you believed Clinton during the Lewinski scandal.

apples and oranges. and, until the actual testimony came out, yes, i did. unlike you, i wait for proof.

 

And hey, you're Mr. Truth and Justice.  So I'll ask you the same question I asked Eldar: why do they get a pass?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

apparently you STILL cannot read. i did not say they get a pass, i clearly said:

btw, before commissar gets his panties in a bind, my point is that if they did stick their hands in the cookie jar, then apparently they are caught. the system works. amazing.

are you being intentionally obtuse today or what? i mean, c'mon commissar, you're smarter than this.

 

taks

Edited March 29, 2006 by taks

[taks]

It isn't a surprise that the republicans keep screwing up the economy each time their in office either taks.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

funny, but the economy is in better shape now than under any democrat. in spite of 12 million illegals, we're STILL sitting at under 5% unemployment, inflation lower than any time in history. wages, in spite of cries from the left, are doing exactly what they do under any president: they're tracking inflation (a bit higher, actually).

 

and, somehow, a republican is screwing up the economy? sheesh, man, how tough is this one to figure out. of course, if the idiot hadn't pushed the danged drug bill down our throats we'd be doing even better. never let one party control all branches... never.

 

no, i need no hugs. i do need, however, for ATLAS to compile properly and pass all sanity tests. it's a real bitch today and i'm grumpy.

 

taks

[alanschu]

I think people would criticize Bush regardless of what he did.  If he actually lowered the debt, then his critics would probably complain about him not aggressively pursuing Al-Qaeda or something stupid.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think people would defend bush regardless of what he did. If he actually did raise or debt, then his praisers would probably praise him about being resolute on hating gays or something stupid.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'm not a Bush defender. I have little opinion of him at all. I was pointing out the absurdity of your post.

[Commissar]

you're the one with the reading comprehension problem... i clearly stated:

also, d'ya think maybe the article is a bit one-sided?

see?

And my response was, what do you consider an impartial source? You still continue to dance around that question. Waxman's not impartial? Fine. Tell me who is. Please. Pentagon? GAO? Who?

 

funny, but wasn't this article led off from the viewpoint of a congressman with a known axe to grind with the whitehouse?  you're right, it works both ways.  given that the article clearly favors waxman's opinion, and we don't have any other side to the story, the safe route is to actually wait for the evidence.  of course, nooo, you need to hop right on the crucifixion bandwagon, don't you?

And, once again, you're acting as if this is the only allegation leveled against Halliburton in the past couple of years. If you're really that out of touch, I could certainly educate you.

 

apparently you STILL cannot read.  i did not say they get a pass, i clearly said:

btw, before commissar gets his panties in a bind, my point is that if they did stick their hands in the cookie jar, then apparently they are caught. the system works. amazing.

are you being intentionally obtuse today or what? i mean, c'mon commissar, you're smarter than this.

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The system works?

 

Let me ask you something: you dip into your till, you think you're going to get ten other chances to do it again? You think you're going to get a pass if you promise to be a good little boy? You and I both know you won't. I screw up something, I don't get the opportunity to screw it up again. Why don't we apply that standard here? According to you, everything's working as it should, which means you're comfortable with a system wherein a violator is caught, admits to wrongdoing, and isn't even given so much as a slap on the wrist provided they promise not to do it again.

 

I am smarter than that. You, on the other hand, appear not to be.

[alanschu]

It isn't a surprise that the republicans keep screwing up the economy each time their in office either taks.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

This is an incorrect statement. While Reagan did increase the national deficit because of his military spending to keep up in the arms race, he certainly didn't "screw up" the economy. Deficit != screwed up economy. Reagan's terms saw a substantial decrease in inflation, and economic growth higher than in the Carter-Ford eras (and also higher than the Bush-Clinton years)

 

 

Here's an interesting graph as well.

 

 

As a percentage of GDP, George W. Bush still hasn't reached Reagan's level of deficit spending.

[Cantousent]

Don't even care about the proof, apparently.  The source of an allegation is important in a news article.  If you discredit the source, you discredit the charge.  If this report came from an independent source, I would find it more compelling.

Do you want me to find you independent sources? Name what you consider independent, and I'll dig up a few for you inside twenty minutes. This is hardly the first time this sort of allegation has been made; why are you acting like this is some sort of out-of-the-blue accusation?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'll save a longer response for when I have time, but let me just ask, if there is better evidence, evidence that comes directly from the Pentagon rather than evidence that comes from a report that allegedly cites the Pentagon, why did you choose to lead with this article? Yeah, Commie, dig it up. I'd love to see better evidence.

 

Furthermore, my smug friend, if you really hate the abuses foisted on the public and the military by Halliburton, then you should really hate the folks who've made this issue as partisan as it is. That's the fact of life. It is a partisan issue, whether you like that or not. So, when folks are suspicious of a clearly partisan source, then you're going to have to deal with it. You don't like it? Thank your back alley brawling Democrats. There were legitimate complaints agains the Clinton administration that never got a second look because they looked like political attacks of opportunity. First of all, why weren't there more complainst against Halliburton during the Clinton years.

[tarna]

A great read guys but let's keep it cool eh?

[taks]

And my response was, what do you consider an impartial source?

it's got nothing to do with that. are you really that dense? all we have heard is one side of the story and you are ready to convict.

 

you posted this article as some sort of definitive proof without any dissenting opinion.

 

why is it so hard to fathom?

 

You still continue to dance around that question.  Waxman's not impartial?  Fine.  Tell me who is.  Please.  Pentagon?  GAO?  Who?

i dance around nothing. i clearly stated wait till all the evidence is in.l

 

edited out...

 

And, once again, you're acting as if this is the only allegation leveled against Halliburton in the past couple of years.  If you're really that out of touch, I could certainly educate you. 

how many times do i have to say it, allegations are allegations. proof commissar. PROOF. and, how many times do i have to say if it's true, they are caught.

DUH!

 

Let me ask you something: you dip into your till, you think you're going to get ten other chances to do it again?  You think you're going to get a pass if you promise to be a good little boy?

show me where i said that.

 

also, show me PROOF.

 

According to you, everything's working as it should, which means you're comfortable with a system wherein a violator is caught, admits to wrongdoing, and isn't even given so much as a slap on the wrist provided they promise not to do it again.

if the allegations are true, then they are caught. how much simpler can it be?

 

I am smarter than that.  You, on the other hand, appear not to be.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

sorry, you can barely even read my points yet i'm lacking?

 

taks

Edited March 30, 2006 by taks

[Kaftan Barlast]

Still its strange how the rigth wing (which naturally conisder themselves the unbiased middleground) all the way from Bill O'reilly to Taks, uses the exact same tactics in debates. It has three key strategies which are often combined

• Undermine the credibility of criticism by dismssing it as left-biased:
   
  "given that we have only the one-sided information so far, it is a bit hard to make a judgement."
   
  "let's call this what it is, a politically motivated attack on the Vice President by a strictly partisan representative from a state in which Democrats outnumber Republicans by a healthy margin. Waxman isn't interested in serving justice, only his politcal aspirations."
   
   
  
• Make yourself out to be the reasonable, mature and responsible party by adressing your opponent in a condescending manner. This is O'Reilleys favorite trick.
   
   
  "given that the article clearly favors waxman's opinion, and we don't have any other side to the story, the safe route is to actually wait for the evidence. of course, nooo, you need to hop right on the crucifixion bandwagon, don't you?"
   
  "unlike you, i wait for proof."
   
   
  
• Carefully choosing only to reply to the arguments that you think you can easily dimsiss, ignore the rest, hoping your opponent doesnt notice your artul dodging.
  

Tune in next week for an analysis of leftwing argument strategies

[Commissar]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060316/ap_on_...taminated_water

 

That's one of my all-time favorites, Taks, old buddy, old pal.

 

One of the company's own says they massively screwed up their contract, but hey...it's just an allegation. I bet that guy was just pissed off over his salary.

 

There's no proof! There's no proof! They haven't been convicted of anything! All these allegations, over several years, have had their day in court and been proved utterly spurious! Except that they haven't, but that's a minor little quibble. As long as a representative from the company steps out and says that they've done nothing wrong, but they've nevertheless fixed all of their problems, I suppose that's repudiation enough.

 

Let me ask you this, my small-government, fiscal discipline, math-and-science and definitely not creationism, support-our-troops conservative friend: what's an acceptable timetable to wait on investigating all of these claims? If there's even an outside chance that they're true, perish the thought, aren't we prolonging our direct involvement in Iraqi affairs, and putting our guys in needless danger?

 

There's likely not a trip over to the happy fun zone in my immediate future, but there's always that possibility. If that were your position, how comfortable would you be with even the possibility of mismanagement?

[taks]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060316/ap_on_...taminated_water

 

That's one of my all-time favorites, Taks, old buddy, old pal.

when have i ever said halliburton has never done anything wrong? really.

 

One of the company's own says they massively screwed up their contract, but hey...it's just an allegation.  I bet that guy was just pissed off over his salary.

maybe. do you know for sure?

 

There's no proof!  There's no proof!  They haven't been convicted of anything!  All these allegations, over several years, have had their day in court and been proved utterly spurious!  Except that they haven't, but that's a minor little quibble.  As long as a representative from the company steps out and says that they've done nothing wrong, but they've nevertheless fixed all of their problems, I suppose that's repudiation enough.

in the absence of proof, you choose to automatically side with allegation.

 

sorry, but i believe in justice. guilty until proven innocent. if they have done something wrong, and they may well have, then they should be punished. i hope to hell that ken lay gets his due.

 

Let me ask you this, my small-government, fiscal discipline, math-and-science and definitely not creationism, support-our-troops conservative friend:

uh, i'm not a conservative. libertarian is a better term.

 

what's an acceptable timetable to wait on investigating all of these claims?  If there's even an outside chance that they're true, perish the thought, aren't we prolonging our direct involvement in Iraqi affairs, and putting our guys in needless danger?

as soon as possible. where have i EVER claimed the allegations had no merit? all i said was the ARTICLE was one-sided and you have a one-sided congressman lobbing charges. do you know for sure that cheney is wrong? nope, and neither do i know that waxman is wrong. two-way street there...

 

There's likely not a trip over to the happy fun zone in my immediate future, but there's always that possibility.  If that were your position, how comfortable would you be with even the possibility of mismanagement?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

mismanagement is likely given their repeated problems. do it too often and the government will revoke your ability to bid contracts.

 

taks

[taks]

Still its strange how the rigth wing (which naturally conisder themselves the unbiased middleground) all the way from Bill O'reilly to Taks, uses the exact same tactics in debates. It has three key strategies which are often combined

you really need to understand what right wing is... i'm not. i am an extremist, but a libertarian at best. it is considered "middle" simply because i believe in some things the right likes and others the left likes.

 

• Undermine the credibility of criticism by dismssing it as left-biased:
   
  "given that we have only the one-sided information so far, it is a bit hard to make a judgement."
   
  "let's call this what it is, a politically motivated attack on the Vice President by a strictly partisan representative from a state in which Democrats outnumber Republicans by a healthy margin.  Waxman isn't interested in serving justice, only his politcal aspirations."

did i dismiss it? or did i simply say so far it is only one-sided.
 
so much for your brilliant tactic number 1. really, you're as foolish as the rest.
 

Make yourself out to be the reasonable, mature and responsible party by adressing your opponent in a condescending manner. This is O'Reilleys favorite trick.
 
 
"given that the article clearly favors waxman's opinion, and we don't have any other side to the story, the safe route is to actually wait for the evidence. of course, nooo, you need to hop right on the crucifixion bandwagon, don't you?"
 
"unlike you, i wait for proof."

my "opponent" criticized me for disregarding the pentagon, when my first statement clearly called the ARTICLE one-sided. it is not my fault commissar failed to read that.
 
brilliant list item 2 shot to pieces.
 

Carefully choosing only to reply to the arguments that you think you can easily dimsiss, ignore the rest, hoping your opponent doesnt notice your artul dodging.

i answered all of it other than the llyranor rant that was seemingly about something that made little or no sense.

 

so much for brilliant list item 3.

 

Tune in next week for an analysis of leftwing argument strategies

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

you really need to pay attention to the things i say. apparently, you hear only what you want and jump immediately to conclusion.

 

again, where did i dismiss any of it? where? i said it was one-sided. we've heard from the prosecution, now we need to hear from the defense. that's how justice works.

 

taks

[thepixiesrock]

Oh Darth Taks, you're such a tease!

[taks]

oh, btw, kaftan, i never said it was left biased. problem 2 with your first bullet item.

 

one-sided does not me "left" or "right", it simply means "one sided." that's an easy one.

 

taks

[taks]

wow, i forgot i still had darth taks as my sig.

 

i need a new one.

 

defender of the <insert obvious reference to something blatently right wing to appease kaftan, commissar and others>

 

taks

[thepixiesrock]

Truth and Justice?