Someone didn't teach you about the spoils of war in history class...
Cheney does not own any Haliburton stock, what could he have to gain from this?
: ) Hopper
Companies previously headed by Clinton or Gore? Well....err....that wouldn't be possible becauce neither of them had ever held a job in the private sector.Originally posted by: 3L33T32003
Originally posted by: Queasy
B.A.U - Business As Usual.
Seriously, tell me that this isn't the way the business is normally conducted in D.C. for the past...ohhh, forever.
Can you PLEASE prove to me, with links, that when CLINTON fired missles into Iraq, and when CLINTON went to Kosovo and Haiti, that companies previously headed by him or Al Gore were awarded multi-billion dollar contracts to clean up the mess afterwards?
And don't you just LOVE how the army spread leaflets that said "don't burn your oil fields" to the Iraqi army???? Yeah, that will stop them! Kinda makes the connection easy to see, eh?
People should not say "blood for oil" they should say "blood for Haliburton."
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
If Haliburton is the best at what they do and their price is fair who cares?
Originally posted by: 3L33T32003
Someone didn't teach you about the spoils of war in history class...
Cheney does not own any Haliburton stock, what could he have to gain from this?
: ) Hopper
You wanna take bets where Cheney goes to work after he gets outta office?????
Can you PLEASE prove to me, with links
WTF? How did they not win fair and square? Please show me evidence of that. They participated in a legal bid and were awarded the contract. How did that not turn out fair and square. In the world of contracts, what is legal dictates what is fair and square and they were awarded the contract legally.Originally posted by: lupy
If they didn't win fair and square and the bidding process is controversial, then you tell me how they won. Geez, you sure like to fight a losing battle don't you
Oh my god, this is farking hilarious!!! Halliburton's civil engineering/contracting services are such a joke they ARE BANNED FROM BIDDING ON ANY NEW PROJECTS IN THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA!!!!!! They farked up 3 or 4 highway projects already...some are 10 years behind schedule!
Originally posted by: Corn
Oh my god, this is farking hilarious!!! Halliburton's civil engineering/contracting services are such a joke they ARE BANNED FROM BIDDING ON ANY NEW PROJECTS IN THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA!!!!!! They farked up 3 or 4 highway projects already...some are 10 years behind schedule!
A quick search at Nexis yielded not a single article regarding this supposed barring of contract bids. Perhaps you would like to provide something for us skeptics?
As for the leaflets....every heard of PsyOps?
Originally posted by: jjones
WTF? How did they not win fair and square? Please show me evidence of that. They participated in a legal bid and were awarded the contract. How did that not turn out fair and square. In the world of contracts, what is legal dictates what is fair and square and they were awarded the contract legally.Originally posted by: lupy
If they didn't win fair and square and the bidding process is controversial, then you tell me how they won. Geez, you sure like to fight a losing battle don't you
Cheney countered the report by saying the road-building business is only a very small part of Halliburton?s core mission, and is one the company is attempting to phase out.
Originally posted by: uncJIGGA
Also, according to this, Cheney is still getting payments from Halliburton...deferred salary or something like that.
Unless there is something to hide, no sane person would use secret bidding!
I never said it was illegal. Hell, I wouldn't even know if it was unethical. I just wanted to throw it out because some have said he is no longer getting paid by Halliburton and that's not true! I DO think it might be strange for him to take a deffered salary, but maybe its standard practice when someone leaves a company to join a public office.Originally posted by: iamwiz82
Originally posted by: uncJIGGA
Also, according to this, Cheney is still getting payments from Halliburton...deferred salary or something like that.
so having deferred salary is illegal? Do you people make this stuff up or do you actually think what you say is the truth?
Also, according to this, Cheney is still getting payments from Halliburton...deferred salary or something like that .
When he left Halliburton in 2000 to become George Bush?s running mate, he opted not to receive his leaving payment in a lump sum but instead have it paid to him over five years, possibly for tax reasons.
That's your interpretation of fair and square. Try going to a judge and seeking an injunction by stating that you don't feel the contract was fair and square; that you just don't agree with the terms of the bid and for that reason it's not fair and square in your eyes. Lets see how long the judge can contain an outburst of laughter.Originally posted by: lupy
Originally posted by: jjones
WTF? How did they not win fair and square? Please show me evidence of that. They participated in a legal bid and were awarded the contract. How did that not turn out fair and square. In the world of contracts, what is legal dictates what is fair and square and they were awarded the contract legally.Originally posted by: lupy
If they didn't win fair and square and the bidding process is controversial, then you tell me how they won. Geez, you sure like to fight a losing battle don't you
Winning it legally does not equate to winning it fair and square.
Fair and square means open bidding, every company that is capable of rebuilding Iraq should be allowed to bid.
If Haliburton really is such a capable company as many seem to suggest, then what are they afraid of if the bidding is open? If they are the most capable, they will win. Why then do we shield out some firms by using the controversial secret bidding to award contracts to then?
Unless there is something to hide, no sane person would use secret bidding!
Originally posted by: jjones
That's your interpretation of fair and square. Try going to a judge and seeking an injunction by stating that you don't feel the contract was fair and square; that you just don't agree with the terms of the bid and for that reason it's not fair and square in your eyes. Lets see how long the judge can contain an outburst of laughter.Originally posted by: lupy
Originally posted by: jjones
WTF? How did they not win fair and square? Please show me evidence of that. They participated in a legal bid and were awarded the contract. How did that not turn out fair and square. In the world of contracts, what is legal dictates what is fair and square and they were awarded the contract legally.Originally posted by: lupy
If they didn't win fair and square and the bidding process is controversial, then you tell me how they won. Geez, you sure like to fight a losing battle don't you
Winning it legally does not equate to winning it fair and square.
Fair and square means open bidding, every company that is capable of rebuilding Iraq should be allowed to bid.
If Haliburton really is such a capable company as many seem to suggest, then what are they afraid of if the bidding is open? If they are the most capable, they will win. Why then do we shield out some firms by using the controversial secret bidding to award contracts to then?
Unless there is something to hide, no sane person would use secret bidding!
You just don't get it. Contract law determines what is fair and square; not your opinion. By my opinion, Halliburton won fair and square. Both opinions amount to nothing and Halliburton still legally won the contract, fair and square.
Yes, I suppose you also believe OJ Simpson didn't kill anyone then? Clinton didn't have sexual relationship with Monica? In both cases they were all legally acquitted, that's fair and square right?
Originally posted by: Corn
Yes, I suppose you also believe OJ Simpson didn't kill anyone then? Clinton didn't have sexual relationship with Monica? In both cases they were all legally acquitted, that's fair and square right?
I love straw-men arguments.
I concede defeat in the face of your batallion of strawmen. I don't like pointless discussion with someone who hasn't a clue about what he is talking about.Originally posted by: lupy
Originally posted by: jjones
That's your interpretation of fair and square. Try going to a judge and seeking an injunction by stating that you don't feel the contract was fair and square; that you just don't agree with the terms of the bid and for that reason it's not fair and square in your eyes. Lets see how long the judge can contain an outburst of laughter.Originally posted by: lupy
Originally posted by: jjones
WTF? How did they not win fair and square? Please show me evidence of that. They participated in a legal bid and were awarded the contract. How did that not turn out fair and square. In the world of contracts, what is legal dictates what is fair and square and they were awarded the contract legally.Originally posted by: lupy
If they didn't win fair and square and the bidding process is controversial, then you tell me how they won. Geez, you sure like to fight a losing battle don't you
Winning it legally does not equate to winning it fair and square.
Fair and square means open bidding, every company that is capable of rebuilding Iraq should be allowed to bid.
If Haliburton really is such a capable company as many seem to suggest, then what are they afraid of if the bidding is open? If they are the most capable, they will win. Why then do we shield out some firms by using the controversial secret bidding to award contracts to then?
Unless there is something to hide, no sane person would use secret bidding!
You just don't get it. Contract law determines what is fair and square; not your opinion. By my opinion, Halliburton won fair and square. Both opinions amount to nothing and Halliburton still legally won the contract, fair and square.
Yes, I suppose you also believe OJ Simpson didn't kill anyone then? Clinton didn't have sexual relationship with Monica? In both cases they were all legally acquitted, that's fair and square right?
Originally posted by: jjones
I concede defeat in the face of your batallion of strawmen. I don't like pointless discussion with someone who hasn't a clue about what he is talking about.Originally posted by: lupy
Originally posted by: jjones
That's your interpretation of fair and square. Try going to a judge and seeking an injunction by stating that you don't feel the contract was fair and square; that you just don't agree with the terms of the bid and for that reason it's not fair and square in your eyes. Lets see how long the judge can contain an outburst of laughter.Originally posted by: lupy
Originally posted by: jjones
WTF? How did they not win fair and square? Please show me evidence of that. They participated in a legal bid and were awarded the contract. How did that not turn out fair and square. In the world of contracts, what is legal dictates what is fair and square and they were awarded the contract legally.Originally posted by: lupy
If they didn't win fair and square and the bidding process is controversial, then you tell me how they won. Geez, you sure like to fight a losing battle don't you
Winning it legally does not equate to winning it fair and square.
Fair and square means open bidding, every company that is capable of rebuilding Iraq should be allowed to bid.
If Haliburton really is such a capable company as many seem to suggest, then what are they afraid of if the bidding is open? If they are the most capable, they will win. Why then do we shield out some firms by using the controversial secret bidding to award contracts to then?
Unless there is something to hide, no sane person would use secret bidding!
You just don't get it. Contract law determines what is fair and square; not your opinion. By my opinion, Halliburton won fair and square. Both opinions amount to nothing and Halliburton still legally won the contract, fair and square.
Yes, I suppose you also believe OJ Simpson didn't kill anyone then? Clinton didn't have sexual relationship with Monica? In both cases they were all legally acquitted, that's fair and square right?
Didn' the UK BBC & New Zealand yesterday reported Blair couldn't even get a crumb (of a rebuilt Iraq contract) from Bush for being such a good "Wifery/Viceroy"?Originally posted by: iamwiz82
Originally posted by: jjones
Well it has to go to someone. It's too bad the report did not go into detail enough to show all those other bidders that wre purposely pushed aside in order to award the contract to Halliburton. Or if it was even an open bidding process. Other than stating that the contract went to Halliburton, that report says little else.
if they were pushed aside, you would hear alot more bitching.
Just pointing out the hypocrisy, sorry I made you mad