<a href='http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/22/opinion/22HERB.html' target='_blank'>http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/22/opinion/22HERB.html</a>

These actions started as early as 1984; they appear to have continued during the period between 1995 and 2000,

Who was that Pres again??

BTW, exactly HOW has the govt come thundering down on the Chicks?

I give this one a great big YAWN>>>>>>>>> :rolleyes:

BTW, I love capitalism. Play the cards they deal ya. If you don't, someone will. Maybe you should buy some of their stock! :drink:

I don't understand the connection between France and Halliburton.Is Halliburton part of the federal government now? Does the story prove anything illegal going on with this?

just say no roy Wrote:I don't understand the connection between France and Halliburton.Is Halliburton part of the federal government now? Does the story prove anything illegal going on with this?

Dont even try to say that you dont understand the connection between Halliburton and the government.

bigolhawg Wrote:

just say no roy Wrote:I don't understand the connection between France and Halliburton.Is Halliburton part of the federal government now? Does the story prove anything illegal going on with this?

Dont even try to say that you dont understand the connection between Halliburton and the government.

I said i didn't understand the connection between France and Halliburton.Again i ask was their anything illegal proved with the link?

Giving contracts to Halliburton with no bids being done is illegal when there is no state of emergency. Whether Dicky used to own the company or not. Going against US sactions is illegal.

I dont understand where you got France, but what I do know is that the US government is letting the Vice President line his pockets while not even trying to cover up the paper trail.

The Bush Administration: "Yeah, were gonna give ourselves huge bonuses, were going to tell you about it, and were going to expect you to trust that us invading Iraq was about human rights."

Dont expect me to get on that train.

bigolhawg Wrote:Giving contracts to Halliburton with no bids being done is illegal when there is no state of emergency. Whether Dicky used to own the company or not. Going against US sactions is illegal.

I dont understand where you got France, but what I do know is that the US government is letting the Vice President line his pockets while not even trying to cover up the paper trail.

The Bush Administration: "Yeah, were gonna give ourselves huge bonuses, were going to tell you about it, and were going to expect you to trust that us invading Iraq was about human rights."

Dont expect me to get on that train.

Don't give me Waxmans oppinion.Give me proof.And look at the topic description.What does it say?

just say no roy Wrote:

bigolhawg Wrote:Giving contracts to Halliburton with no bids being done is illegal when there is no state of emergency. &nbsp;Whether Dicky used to own the company or not. &nbsp;Going against US sactions is illegal. &nbsp;

I dont understand where you got France, but what I do know is that the US government is letting the Vice President line his pockets while not even trying to cover up the paper trail.

The Bush Administration: &nbsp;"Yeah, were gonna give ourselves huge bonuses, were going to tell you about it, and were going to expect you to trust that us invading Iraq was about human rights."

Dont expect me to get on that train.

Don't give me Waxmans oppinion.Give me proof.And look at the topic description.What does it say?

You are avoiding the point. The point is that both Halliburton and France do business with Libya and Iran. Theres your connection.

Waxmans opinion just happens to be the truth. So thats what I will choose to agree with.

[quote="bigolhawg"][quote="just say no roy"][quote="bigolhawg"]Giving contracts to Halliburton with no bids being done is illegal when there is no state of emergency.

just say no roy Wrote:

bigolhawg Wrote:

just say no roy Wrote:

bigolhawg Wrote:Giving contracts to Halliburton with no bids being done is illegal when there is no state of emergency. &nbsp;Whether Dicky used to own the company or not. &nbsp;Going against US sactions is illegal. &nbsp;

I dont understand where you got France, but what I do know is that the US government is letting the Vice President line his pockets while not even trying to cover up the paper trail.

The Bush Administration: &nbsp;"Yeah, were gonna give ourselves huge bonuses, were going to tell you about it, and were going to expect you to trust that us invading Iraq was about human rights."

Dont expect me to get on that train.

Don't give me Waxmans oppinion.Give me proof.And look at the topic description.What does it say?

You are avoiding the point. The point is that both Halliburton and France do business with Libya and Iran. Theres your connection.

Waxmans opinion just happens to be the truth. So thats what I will choose to agree with.

Waxman has never told the truth and Halliburton is not a country!!!

You are getting good at this. You proved my point, which is that Halliburton isnt a country. It shouldnt be able to make its own decisions about who it trades with, and shouldnt be given huge contracts when it has been proven to go against the nation it is supposed to follow.

Waxman did tell the truth. Exporting oil from Iraq is not an emergency issue. We have survived long enough without Iraqi oil, so obviously we can wait it out until a fair bid process has taken place before we begin exporting.

I will admit that the putting out of oil fires is an emergency issue, and that the Halliburton contract for that work is fine by me.

Halliburton shouldn't be able to make it's own desicions about who it trades with?Are you for real?Thanks for making my point Bigolhawg and yes i'm getting good at this. :laugh:

just say no roy Wrote:Halliburton shouldn't be able to make it's own desicions about who it trades with?Are you for real?Thanks for making my point Bigolhawg and yes i'm getting good at this. :laugh:

So you are saying Halliburton should be allowed to trade with anyone, including Libya, Iran, the Taliban, whoever will gain them the most money? The government shouldnt have the ability to put restrictions on who people trade with?

bigolhawg Wrote:

just say no roy Wrote:Halliburton shouldn't be able to make it's own desicions about who it trades with?Are you for real?Thanks for making my point Bigolhawg and yes i'm getting good at this. &nbsp;:laugh:

So you are saying Halliburton should be allowed to trade with anyone, including Libya, Iran, the Taliban, whoever will gain them the most money? The government shouldnt have the ability to put restrictions on who people trade with?

No i'm saying Halliburton should be allowed to make it's own decisions who they trade with as long as it's legal.That was my point all along.If theres no proof of a crime here whats the deal?Waxman is a party hack sweetheart.Did you not know that? :laugh:

How has Halliburton profited on this war besides Red Adair, which is the BEST damn "Capper" of oil well fires on Earth?

Other than that, how?

RebelKev Wrote:How has Halliburton profited on this war besides Red Adair, which is the BEST damn "Capper" of oil well fires on Earth?

Other than that, how?

Exporting oil isnt profitable?

From the article:

Quote:And, yes, it's made zillions doing business in countries that sponsor terrorism, including members of the "axis of evil" that is so despised by the president.

But the wrath of the White House has not come thundering down on
Halliburton for consorting with the enemy. And there's been very
little public criticism.

My reaction is, "so?"

I make no secret about my support of free trade, and my dislike of government-sanctioned economic embargos (it punishes a whole country made up of millions of individuals based on the actions of its regime). The article makes no distinction between "axis of evil" governments and everyday merchants. I despise Fidel Castro, but why shouldn't I buy/sell widgets with Jose Q. Businessman in Havana, if we both come to a contractual agreement?

To answer bigolhawg's questions...

Quote:So you are saying Halliburton should be allowed to trade with anyone, including Libya, Iran, the Taliban, whoever will gain them the most money?

Yes, they should. Because we don't like Khaddafi doesn't mean we have to dislike a Libyan business owner.

Quote:The government shouldnt have the ability to put restrictions on who people trade with?

No, they shouldn't.

BTW, I do believe that the (over)reaction to the Dixie Chicks' comments were overblown and excessive. In addition, I think any "boycott" or hostility toward French products or citizens is generally uncalled for as well.

Not so strange how this argument is shaping up. I do not think American companies should trade with nations who support terrorism as that money will eventually land in the hands of men who want to destroy us, but as a liberal, many of you would expect me to endorse government restrictions.

Even though the conservatives here do not support terrorism by any means, they take the stance that there shouldnt be restrictions placed, no matter who is blowing up what.

The liberal and conservative stereotypes are alive and well.

bigolhawg Wrote:Not so strange how this argument is shaping up. I do not think American companies should trade with nations who support terrorism as that money will eventually land in the hands of men who want to destroy us, but as a liberal, many of you would expect me to endorse government restrictions.

Even though the conservatives here do not support terrorism by any means, they take the stance that there shouldnt be restrictions placed, no matter who is blowing up what.

The liberal and conservative stereotypes are alive and well.

Do you honestly believe that Democrats operate any differently?

Do Democrats follow liberal stereotypes much of the time? Yeah, so do Republicans, whats the point here?