Ghost of Posted May 18, 2004 Share Posted May 18, 2004 Originally posted by chomerics Get real JB, this whole post has been noting except for you trying to blame liberals for everything As for oil being the reason, nobody said the oil would go down, only stock prices of Haliburton, Bechtel and others would go up. . . Oh wait, that did happen.:doh: Here's their stock since the beginning of war efforts in Iraq. Chomerics, perhaps you'd like the stock prices of foreign companies to go up? It ain't like there are dozens of alternatives to Haliburton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted May 18, 2004 Share Posted May 18, 2004 Originally posted by jbooma actually I like liberals i have nothing bad to say about the companies trying to help iraq, and don't forget they are losing people as well the problem is not many companies can do what they are doing you have to find it funny though that no one is talking about the oil now though I don't have a problem with the companies in Iraq now as well, just this administrations choosing them with lack of a competetion. Capitolistic traits, instead of facist ones. Here's the facts. . . 1.) There are a few companies that could aid the war efforts in Iraq right now, Haliburton is only one of them. 2.) Cheney was the operating CEO of Haliburton before quitting to become Bush's VP running mate. 3.) Cheney is still on the payroll of Haliburton is terms of deferred stock options. 4.) We gave a multi billion dollar contract to Haliburton without taking bids from other companies (and yes, there are other companies which can do what Haliburton is doing now) 5.) Their stock has almost doubled since the contract was awarded, which in turn almsot doubles Cheney's deferred payments. I find this not only as an extremely obvious conflict of interests, but an incredible lack of foresight by this administration. The fact that Anti-war sentiment was promoting a war for oil adgenda, this administration (or any for that matter) should have taken the necessary steps to NOT promote a favortism ESPICALLY with Haliburton!!! The fact that they did not get bids, had meetings with top executives before the war and failed to recognize the seriousness of the accusations shows a lack of both leadership and common sense. IF they had actually allowed other companies to bid on the contracts, there would have been a poisibility Haliburton would have not recieved the contract because Congress would have become involved. By circumnavigating the system they insured Haliburton would recieve the billions in contracts and there wasn't anything Americans could do about it. It's blind arrogance at best, and it's downright subversive and shows a corruptness in the Presidential office the likes of which have never been seen before at its worst level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted May 18, 2004 Share Posted May 18, 2004 You know the bidding process takes a long time right? Because part of the bid is a proposal. So by the time Baghdad fell, we'd still be talking about who had the best proposal. Come on, let's dig a bit deeper with our brains here. It ain't like Haliburton didn't have contracts with the USG in the 90s, my friend. You REALLY would have preferred American tax dollars going to a French company? Come on. There was, AFAIK, one American alternative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted May 18, 2004 Author Share Posted May 18, 2004 I agree, halliburton has been used by Clinton many times over. I believe the other 2 prominent companies came from countries that opposed the war... isnt that outsourcing and wrong This is not to blame the liberals, this is to point out hypocrisy at the highest levels... If we dont start producing this is going to hurt everyone... 10 square miles of Death Valley is not solar powered cells... 10 miles of Coastline off the Ocean will produce what.... (even if its backup power due to the ease of destruction for them...) I thought the drilling in alaska and off Florida would help us out for many years to come and reduce our intake of 12million out of 20 million barrels to 4 million or so? I go with Argentina but they revolt every 6 months and cant be counted on.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
endzone_dave Posted May 18, 2004 Share Posted May 18, 2004 Exxon-Mobil has made about $20B in profits in the last year: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=XOM All the blame isn't just on OPEC. Our own companies are raking in the money at our own expense. I'm all for a company making as much money as they can but certain companies provide services that people can't live without and when they call join together to raise their own profits, that's wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Funkyalligator Posted May 18, 2004 Share Posted May 18, 2004 I've been reading up on the oil problem...and indeed it is a problem of old refineries and no new ones......companies see no reason to build more or improve the ones that they have.......also another big problem is oil speculation......almost 1/4 to 1/3 of the price of oil is from oil speculators.......who are operating on very slim margins... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted May 18, 2004 Share Posted May 18, 2004 E_D Read a little more closely--that was gross profit. The net looks to be 9 billion. Also, people don't understand what it takes to run a company and what re-investment in its operations might mean. For all we know this might be the beginning of more capital formation, or employment. Are all companies "joining together" or is it merely the fact that Exxon is making money? As for refineries being built, Funky, don't forget some of this is due to the fact they CANT even when they want to. You underestimate the effect environmental regulations and activists have on such matters in this country. But I digress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted May 18, 2004 Share Posted May 18, 2004 Originally posted by Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin Chomerics, perhaps you'd like the stock prices of foreign companies to go up? It ain't like there are dozens of alternatives to Haliburton. There are many different companies that could provide the services Haliburton did. The fact that they got the contract unbidded doesn't bother you? None of the information about Cheney having a vested interest in his financial future tied to Haliburton doesn't bother you? The fact that it was the FIRST contract awarded doesn't bother you? It bothers the hell out of me. You could throw a Dem in there and I'd feel the same way, I'd want to out him as well. There is just no excuse for blatent avoidance of competition, espically in a capitolistic society. This is a sect of facism with the government controlling industry no matter how you look at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
endzone_dave Posted May 18, 2004 Share Posted May 18, 2004 Originally posted by Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin E_D Read a little more closely--that was gross profit. The net looks to be 9 billion. Also, people don't understand what it takes to run a company and what re-investment in its operations might mean. For all we know this might be the beginning of more capital formation, or employment. Are all companies "joining together" or is it merely the fact that Exxon is making money? As for refineries being built, Funky, don't forget some of this is due to the fact they CANT even when they want to. You underestimate the effect environmental regulations and activists have on such matters in this country. But I digress. Net Income Applicable To Common Shares $5,440,000 $6,650,000 $3,650,000 $4,170,000 This is their net profit for the last four quarters. $19.91B to be exact. This gross profit for the last four quarters = Gross Profit 24,943,000 49,722,000 9,437,000 27,436,000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Funkyalligator Posted May 18, 2004 Share Posted May 18, 2004 Independent Media TV – It’s hard to imagine a company being more controversial than Halliburton in recent years. Enron obviously has been a very controversial company, but while Enron’s criminal behavior has been all over the television news, Halliburton’s criminal and controversial activity has flown under the radar of TV headlines, and therefore escaped serious public scrutiny. If you haven’t been following the Halliburton situation closely, I would imagine that you are in for quite a shock as I list them here. Before outlining all the criminal, and controversial behavior, it’s important to mention that Vice President Dick Cheney was CEO of Halliburton from 1995-2000. Tax Evasion While Cheney was CEO of Halliburton, the number of Halliburton subsidiaries registered in tax-friendly locations went from 9 in 1995 to 44 in 1999. And guess what? Halliburton’s federal taxes plummeted from $302 million in 1998 to less than zero, an $85 million rebate in 1999. – Source – Tallahassee Democrat, August 6, 2002 Illegal Business Practices - Corporate Corruption Remember that Cheney was CEO in the LATE 90’s. Although, the AP forgot to mention that in this article - ''A jury has awarded $70 million to a Houston man who claimed that Halliburton and another oil company cheated him out of the chance to develop an oil field in Kazakhstan in the late 1990s.'' – Source – Associated Press, October 25, 2003 Illegal Trade In a letter to Donald Rumsfeld, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif) said, "Halliburton Co. subsidiaries and joint ventures had done business in Iran, Iraq and Libya, in spite of U.S. sanctions against those countries." – Source - San Francisco Chronicle, May 1, 2003 Illegal Arms Trade – Selling Warheads “An attorney for the head of a New Mexico anti-terrorism training firm is asking why prosecutors have zealously pursued his client for allegedly stockpiling warheads but ignored the company from they purchased the weapons. The attorney for High Energy Access Tool's president David Hudak, says Halliburton Corporation solicited Hudak to purchase about 2,400 warheads. Bob Gorence says the company offered the warheads as demolition charges and not as the government-owned military items that are illegal to posses.” – Source - Associated Press, April 28, 2003 Bribing Officials, Part I According to the United States Securities and Exchange Commission report filed by Halliburton, one of Halliburton’s subsidiaries paid a Nigerian official $2.4 million dollars in return for tax breaks. – Source - The Guardian, May 9,2003 Bribing Officials, Part II The Halliburton subsidiary of Kellogg, Brown, and Root, and a French engineering firm, are being investigated by the French financial crimes squad for the payment of up to $200,000,000 in under the counter “commissions” (read: kick back, or bribe) for a contract in Nigeria. – Source - The Guardian, in London, Oct. 11, 2003 Illegally Price Gouging the Government, Part I Under Cheney's watch, Halliburton was fined $2 million for consistently over billing the Pentagon. - Source – Tallahassee Democrat, August 6, 2002 Illegally Price Gouging the Government, Part II? According to Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif), “Halliburton billed the government an average price of $1.59 per gallon (3.7 litres), excluding the company's fee of 2%-7%,” “He (Waxman) said the average wholesale cost of gasoline during that period in the Middle East was about 71 cents a gallon, a figure an oil industry source told Reuters was accurate. That meant Halliburton was charging more than 90 cents a gallon to transport fuel into Iraq from Kuwait.” “When we checked with independent experts to see if this fee was reasonable, they were stunned,’ said Waxman, adding a reasonable transport cost would be 10 to 25 cents per gallon, especially as the US military was providing security. – Source - Reuters, October 16, 2003 Illegally Price Gouging the Government, Part III? “As of Oct. 19, Halliburton had imported 61.3 million gallons of gasoline from Kuwait into Iraq, and the company was paid $162.5 million for an average price of $2.65 a gallon, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif) and Rep. John Dingell (D) wrote.’’ - Source - Yahoo, October 30, 2003 Government Favors for Halliburton, Part I During Cheney’s watch Halliburton received $1.5 billion in government financing and loan guarantees. - Source – Tallahassee Democrat, August 6, 2002 Immunity from Polluting Drinking Water – Government Favors, Part II As part of the new Energy Bill, there is a provision that, if it becomes law, “the EPA would be helpless even if the technique pumped pollutants into drinking-water wells.” The provision, favored by Senate Republicans, has already passed the Republican controlled House. This provision specifically names the process, ‘hydraulic fracturing’, that will be immune from regulation from the Environmental Protection Agency. – Source - Denver Post, Sept. 14, 2003 Lying about a Nuclear Threat There are many examples of this, but the most blatant is when he said that, “Iraq has reconstituted it’s Nuclear program”, then we found that that claim was based on documents he knew to be forged. These forged documents claimed Iraq attempted to purchase yellow-cake uranium from Nigeria. Cheney ask the CIA to send someone over to Nigeria. The CIA sent Ex-Ambassador Wilson over, and he found that the documents were fake, and reported this back to Cheney's office. This is the same Wilson whose wife was outed by senior Bush officials, after he told his story to the news. She was a covert CIA agent. Revealing her identify as a CIA agent could have risked the lives of many of her contacts. – Source – MSNBC, ABC, CBS, FOX Conflict of Interest – Lying about Financial Ties On NBC’s “Meet the Press”, Sept. 14, 2003, Cheney stated that he has “no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and haven’t had now for over three years.” He also said he had “severed all my ties with the company, gotten rid of all my financial interests.” – That is a bold-faced lie. In reality, “Cheney received deferred compensation of $147,579 in 2001 and $162,392 in 2002, with payments scheduled to continue for three more years.” – Cheney also has “433,333 stock options” valued at more than $10,500,000.00 (433,333 stock options * Today’s Stock Price). – Source - MSNBC, Sept. 26, 2003 The No-Bid Contract, Government Favors, Part III Prior to the war, a Halliburton subsidiary was secretly awarded a two-year, no bid contract worth up to $7,000,000,000. It was originally communicated that the contract was to put out oil well fires and to handle other unspecified duties. As it turns out, those unspecified duties also give Halliburton control of oil wells, and much more. – Source - Chicago Tribune, May 8, 2003 More Lying The stated reason why Halliburton received the no-bid contract is because the Bush Administration needed to keep it secret for 'National Security' reasons, and because of their unique resources to handle the problems, but - ''Bob Grace is president of GSM Consulting, a small company in Amarillo, Texas, that has fought oil well fires all over the world. Grace worked for the Kuwait government after the first Gulf War and was in charge of firefighting strategy for the huge Bergan Oil Field, which had more than 300 fires.” GSM Consulting was not given an opportunity nor a no-bid contract. – Source - CBS, Sept. 21, 2003 Losing an Abestos Lawsuit In 2002, Halliburton agreed to a $4,000,000,000 cash-and-stock deal to settle 200,000 asbestos lawsuits. – Source - Reuters, Sept. 2, 2003 Government Favors, Part IV “Senators are considering a measure that would create a $108 billion fund to pay workers exposed to asbestos, a cancer- causing insulation and fireproofing material. A study by lawyers for asbestos victims estimated the measure would save Halliburton and 10 other companies $15 billion, leading to concerns the company is delaying settlement talks in hopes the bill passes.” – Source - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, July 23, 2003 Corporate Corruption – Filing Bankruptcy to avoid taking responsibility for your actions. If Government favors won’t work to avoid paying the asbestos lawsuit, then try filing for BANKRUPTCY. “The oilfield services company said it is now in a position to make a prepackaged Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing in November for its subsidiaries -- DII Industries, Kellogg Brown, & Root and others involved in asbestos litigation. Once filed, the bankruptcy plan automatically blocks any further asbestos claims, even if the court's stay has expired.” – Source - Reuters, Sept. 29, 2003 Even though they are making billions – ''Halliburton…yesterday reported soaring revenues from its contracts to help rebuild Iraq...The company said sales in the third quarter were 39% higher at $4.1 billion'' – Source - The Guardian, London, October 10, 2003 Paying Halliburton instead of buying food for the Iraqi poor ''Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif) and and Rep. John Dingell (D) also said last week that the UN oil-for-food program was being used to pay Halliburton, in possible violation of a UN Security Council resolution.'' – Source - AFP – October 27th, 2003 and the US Army Corp of Engineers Tax Breaks for the Energy Industry (Including Halliburton), Government Favors V “Congressional negotiators are weighing House and Senate proposals to include dozens of tax breaks for (energy) industries in pending energy legislation, even though they could add as much as $19 billion to the federal budget deficit in the next decade.’’ – Source - Washington Post, September 9,2003 Government Favors VI – Blanket Immunity for oil companies doing business in Iraq If that wasn’t enough, on May 22nd, 2003, Bush issued Executive Order 13303, that specifically gives immunity to oil companies in Iraq. “It also declared a national emergency as the justification for sweeping aside all federal statues, including the Alien Tort Claims Act, and appears to provide immunity against contractual disputes, discrimination suits, violations of labor practices, international treaties, environmental disasters and human rights violations. Even more, it doesn't limit immunity to the production of oil, but also protects individuals, companies and corporations involved in selling and marketing the oil as well.” – Source – San Francisco Chronicle, August 8, 2003 Government Favors VII – Free Trade in the Middle East (i.e. No tariffs, taxes) Now Mr. Bush, we wouldn’t want billion dollar companies paying any taxes would we? – “In a similar address in May, Bush highlighted the importance of promoting democracy and called for the establishment of a Middle East free trade zone.” – Source - Jerusalem Post, November 7, 2003 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted May 18, 2004 Share Posted May 18, 2004 Originally posted by Thiebear I agree, halliburton has been used by Clinton many times over. I believe the other 2 prominent companies came from countries that opposed the war... isnt that outsourcing and wrong This is not to blame the liberals, this is to point out hypocrisy at the highest levels... If we dont start producing this is going to hurt everyone... 10 square miles of Death Valley is not solar powered cells... 10 miles of Coastline off the Ocean will produce what.... (even if its backup power due to the ease of destruction for them...) I thought the drilling in alaska and off Florida would help us out for many years to come and reduce our intake of 12million out of 20 million barrels to 4 million or so? I go with Argentina but they revolt every 6 months and cant be counted on.... Bear, read up on the facts concerning Alaska, how much oil is there and how it would benifit Americans. If you claim that's what you thought, fine, read more up on it and how it will actually effect the economy, specifically forign oil dependence. As for your alternative energy sources, you yourself said it would be a good thing, but we have no acerage. When this is brought up as to what we are currently doing you claim the liberals are saying This is not to blame the liberals, this is to point out hypocrisy at the highest levels... If we dont start producing this is going to hurt everyone... Nobody is saying this is going to hurt everyone, they're studying the pheasibility of reuseable energy to rid our dependence on oil. You said this is a good thing, now you're saying it's the liberal media, read up on it man. Here's some facts. http://www.capewind.org/index.php For the cape wind farm, it will produce 3/4 of the entire electricity required for Cape Cod, Nantucket and Martha's Vinyard. This isn't a miniscule amount of electricity, but a viable source of renewable energy. In the MegaWatts of power, or more than coal plants now. It will save approximately $25million per year in the Mass energy market, approximately 3/4 of the power will be made by the farm and on windy days, it will supply all of the cape and will supplement electricity to Boston by supplying the grid. But, according to you, who said alternative energy is a good source, this is not worth it and it's the liberals saying if we don't go to alternative energies, we'll be in trouble. :doh: As for Solar Power, we currently have the technology to produce 10MW of power with solar power on the system I mentioned above. This is enough power for 10,000 homes. Now, we're not talking about tiny amounts, 10 MWatts is a huge amount of power, more than coal plants as well. So how is this bad and the liberals fault. If you were just misinformed, that's fine, you have the right to change your mind, but if you actually think it's not a viable source of energy, you are sadly mistaked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betty32 Posted May 18, 2004 Share Posted May 18, 2004 Read this in today's WP: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34512-2004May17.html According to the article, there is currently close to 660 million barrels of oil in our Strategic Petroleum Reserve which is a record. To be fair, it states that releasing some of the reserve for public consumption now wouldn't affect the price per gallon that much, but it still begs the question of why it's seemingly being hoarded away while telling Saudi Arabia to produce more oil. :2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted May 18, 2004 Author Share Posted May 18, 2004 No I'm saying putting all your windmills near the ocean as my example pointed out is better for backup as it is easily destroyed by mother nature... You want to burn tires as in Arizone i believe, I got no issue with that and think its a great idea. You want to have windmills or Nuke plants. Everyone is a Not In My Back Yard so its got to catch hold first. If Ted is blocking the one in his back yard its not Bushs fault right? If Ted is blocking the one in Alaska's back yard its not Bushs fault right? If we are going to get ahead here it needs to be put beyond the reach of the politicians and put into a referendum by the people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted May 18, 2004 Share Posted May 18, 2004 chomerics Simply put--windmills are not an alternative fuel source. period. Nor is putting hydroelectric dams everywhere or fuel cells which actually require greater energy put into them, than what they produce for the car. Funky Hate to break this to you, but you could come up with even longer "lists" of ALLEGED sins for other companies. For example--setting up a Free trade zone in the MIddle East has WHAT to do with Haliburton? I mean seriously, they even went to lawsuits? Do you know almost every company has lawsuits pending and most will lose at least a few. Henry Waxman? Come on. And why no link? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted May 18, 2004 Share Posted May 18, 2004 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted May 18, 2004 Share Posted May 18, 2004 Originally posted by Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin chomerics Simply put--windmills are not an alternative fuel source. period. Nor is putting hydroelectric dams everywhere or fuel cells which actually require greater energy put into them, than what they produce for the car. Funky Hate to break this to you, but you could come up with even longer "lists" of ALLEGED sins for other companies. For example--setting up a Free trade zone in the MIddle East has WHAT to do with Haliburton? I mean seriously, they even went to lawsuits? Do you know almost every company has lawsuits pending and most will lose at least a few. Henry Waxman? Come on. And why no link? Ghost, I don't know how you can say this, when is electricity not energy? The wind farm will generate over 450MWatts of power. Do you know how much coal is used to generate this much power? We're talking about some HUGE amounts. So if we make fuel cells with electricity from wind generated power, how is this not an alternative fuel source? My post was on energy, not an alternative fuel source, but in the future, plants like this could promote alternative fuel sources with the energy they create. As far as Kennedy being against it, yes he is, they're building it 20 miles offshore, but it's right out of his back window. Most of the democrats and republicans are for it, the big thing is convincing the people of the cape it will be good for them and getting PETA off their back. They're just as bad as the neo-nazis, or the KKK, they're just on the other side of the spectrum but just as extreme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted May 18, 2004 Share Posted May 18, 2004 You do know who opposes CapeWinds dont you chomerics? It's the Democrats lead by Kennedy and Kerry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade7 Posted May 18, 2004 Share Posted May 18, 2004 Originally posted by codeorama People can walk, they don't have to drive. Some people have to drive to get to work, like my parents. We don't have the luxery of a bus route or metro rail or anything like that. And with the price of gas rising, they're are a lot of people that have to cut back on spending. A lot of people are having trouble even filling up the tank. Just because some feel they don't have to drive doesn't mean that no one has to drive. It isn't that easy, and if it was then none of us would be talking about this. But that's just my opinion. Whether you're a liberal or not, if you have to drive to work then you have to drive to work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSkins561 Posted May 18, 2004 Share Posted May 18, 2004 Originally posted by chomerics Get real JB, this whole post has been noting except for you trying to blame liberals for everything As for oil being the reason, nobody said the oil would go down, only stock prices of Haliburton, Bechtel and others would go up. . . Oh wait, that did happen.:doh: Here's their stock since the beginning of war efforts in Iraq. Bummer, why didnt i invest in Bechtel and Haliburton, what is so wrong with stock prices going up, especially with an American owned company. It is better than some French company reaping the rewards of our efforts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSkins561 Posted May 18, 2004 Share Posted May 18, 2004 Alaska has tons of oil, why are we depending on countries that hate us and want to blow us up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted May 18, 2004 Share Posted May 18, 2004 Another Big Oil thread I still can't find Haliburton Oil refineries or their seat at the OPEC table Guess all of those Texas wildcat types are the reason the prices are high and not OPEC. So instead of moaning about prices why not tell the tree huggers to shut up and give our companies incentives to build more refineries and drill in places where there is oil? And the liberal speculation about Alaska wilderness has people believing there is only enough oil there for 6 months. Its not going to be the government thats going to build a sufficient alternative fuel source for public comsumption its going to be an entrapraneur or two with investors will to take a major risk and thats still a ways off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Funkyalligator Posted May 18, 2004 Share Posted May 18, 2004 The problem is that Halliburton has moved so many of its operations offshore that it has removed the federal government the ability to tax it....yet it is taking in billions of dollars in tax payers money while rips off the government with its contracts... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Funkyalligator Posted May 18, 2004 Share Posted May 18, 2004 The government should be investing heavily in alternative fuel sources...but yet they have actually cut back on investments in this area while at the same time boosting subsidies to oil companies.....hmmmmmm....wonder who is helping whom here... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baculus Posted May 18, 2004 Share Posted May 18, 2004 Cheney, during the vice-presidential debate, said that the Bush administration didn't have any interest in alternative energy solutions because they it's not a viable nor a short term solution. Which is patently false - it doesn't take too much Google search attempts to find tons of information that would heavily disagree with this. (And information produced by experts on the subject of alternateive energy and fuel, not Haliburton flunkies such as Cheney.) Cheney Gee, maybe if Reagan, with James Watt, hadn't gut the alternative energy program during the 80's, we'd be a bit closer. The thing I don't understand is, why some folks on the Right have a knee jerk reaction when it comes to anything Green, or in this case, alternative energy and fuels? This is about a future mankind survival issue, and not about Left and Right, or Democrats and Republicans. But some people, such as Cheney, just do not see the big picture. Environmental issues, and in this case, fuel issues, are about people, and not just about spotted owls. As Bush said, when asked about history, said something along the lines of "Who cares, we'll all be dead and buried." THAT shows their mentality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted May 18, 2004 Share Posted May 18, 2004 Then please ask Ted Kennedy and the Dems why THEY oppose CapeWinds. Clinton had the WH for 8 years WITH a Dem Congress for part of it. Why didnt he do anything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.