Please educate me..

What is the difference? It's the thing that your talking points people always seem blind to - scale. In your heart of hearts, do you believe that the carbon-offset business is EVER going to equal a fraction of Haliburton's? Do you think that awarding all the governement contracts for a hugely expensive (and hugely overpriced) war that you started is as bad as a guy suggesting you do something that one of 19 companies in your portfolio handles?

I don't know why I asked. Of COURSE you do.

At the moment, Al Gore is in no position to make policy and therefore, the incredible din of whining from the right about him is over this outrageous behavior: he is SUGGESTING THAT YOU USE LESS POWER! Oh my God! He's the devil incarnate! Not like that Saintly Dick Cheney.

"You're baiting Me!"
-Piker

The fishin is good here today, so I'll throw out my line.....

Global Warming/Cooling/Climate change/whatever is the greatest danger that man/womankind has ever faced. Mr. Gore preaches this to us on a daily basis and the global media is happy to blare that sermon loud and clear... Chilling any dissent that get's in the way.

Halliburton is a business. It's records are right there for everyone to see. The records have been picked over with a fine tooth comb and the only thing that they have come up with is:

1. Cheney
2. Military contracts
3. Oil

Despite what you believe, those are not bad things.

Haliburton provides service. Mr. Gore stands atop the mountain and preaches down to us villagers to renounce every creature comfort we now depend apon- all the while abusing those same comforts that he would deny us.

BTW, you mentioned an "overpriced war". Are you suggesting going the cheap route and carpet bombing all areas of resistance? That would save a lot of money.

Also, MadelinesDad has never come close to, much less hinted at, the thought that Mr. Gore is the "devil incarnate", or that Vice President Cheney is a "saint". Your words, not his. He did not even imply it.

That happens next week. I've just recieved the latest pre-talking points memo from our evil master KKKarl Rove. Next week we are go for casting Gore as satanic and Cheney as saintly. BOOYAW!!!!

It's PARTAY time!!!!

Piker, my intent wasn't to bait anyone: I was simply pointing out that there are two politicians that have ties to companies that profit from the efforts of their "leaders".

Just as Cheney has ties to Halliburton, a Company that profits from our activities in Iraq and Afghanistan, Gore has ties to GIM, which is profiting from people purchasing carbon offsets. Were you aware that every presenter at the Oscars received in their "goodie bag" a gift certificate from GIM for carbon offsets?

Saying that Mr. Gore is in no position to make policy is ridiculous: he is the self-appointed "leader" of the Global Warming movement. He won an Oscar for his "documentary" on Global Warming. He is the first person anyone mentions when the topic of Global Warming comes up. He was just put on record in an interview saying that any opinion opposed to GW should be stiffled, as GW is now "proven". It may not be a written US Law, but make no doubt about it, Gore created policy in this matter.

There is one thing in your comment that we agree on, Piker. Al Gore does want me to use less power. Too bad he doesn't follow his own lead.

Then you are attempting to set up an equivilency here - what Al Gore does is no better than Dick Cheney. Okay then. I'll take that to mean that you think Al Gore is no more a threat to Americans than Dick Cheney is. Personally I think Gore is fine and Cheney is a problem, but that's just my opinion.

I'm glad we agree that Gore is okay.

what you are talking about. I've read your comment three times, and still don't get it.

My original point is that Gore is doing the same thing (using his position as "leader" of the GW crowd) to line his pockets with cash; as the Left accuses Cheney of doing (starting a war in Iraq to give a sweetheart deal to his buddies at Halliburton). So yes, I agree with you that Al Gore is no better than Dick Cheney in that instance.

As far as Gore being no more of a threat to Americans than Cheney-what the heck are you talking about? If you are implying that Cheney is "dangerous" to Americans due to us fighting terrorism, I would offer that Americans are more threatened if we do nothing (as we did when Gore was VP for 8 years) in respect to fighting terrorism.

Since you put them both in the same post, what do you feel about Dick Cheney's investment in Haliburton, and what do you feel about Al Gore's investment in the fund which includes the carbon voucher company?

conflicts of interest.

How do you feel?

The overpricing thing - do you know what a case of Coke costs in Iraq? $45.00. Haliburton will also handle soldier's laundry - a 15 pound bag costs $100. And don't tell me it's because of overhead - you guys are always saying how much safer it is there than in Washington. I imagine they charge too much for ammo too, though we have no non-war comparison.

I hate belaboring this comparison (it's stupid to begin with) but Cheney has directly siphoned billions of your tax dollars into this company without even a competitive bid. Al Gore has no access to your money, unless you choose to donate it or buy the service from the company he doesn't own.

When Gore is president and swaps out all the White House computers for iMacs, I promise I'll come back and eat crow.

It's just that Gore's is tiny, and Cheney's is ENORMOUS.

I am so sick and tired of the "non competitive bid" argument on Halliburton. First off, it is incorrect. I don't recall anyone crying "foul" when Clinton selected Halliburton (twice) during his two terms. Interestingly enough, the contract for Halliburton was ALREADY in place before Bush took office in 2000.

Here's how it works. It makes perfect sense, which is why most on the Left ignore the facts.

Whenever there is a major reconstruction effort (like Katrina, for example) time is of the essence. It would be unreasonable for companies to come in, and submit bids to clean up/rebuild an afflicted area in a timely manner, after an accident/event. So what the Government does is this: they issue a very general bid out to several large companies (which Halliburton is one of) for large-scale projects. That way, when a disaster or a war "happens", the Government can step right into getting things fixed/cleared. Think about it for a second-use Katrina as an example. How long would it take estimators to come in, assess the damage, decide how to fix it, and then go bid on the job? It would take months and months to undertake a large job like that. Thru LOGPAC, the Government already has a contractor in place to come in and clean things up.

The big firms, like Haliburton, have an army of sub contractors, local companies, etc that will help out in the rebuilding process. The point is, the contract (which I believe runs 5 or 6 years) is already in place before anything happens. There are only a handful of companies around the World that have the capability to do what Halliburton does. That's why Clinton picked them (twice), that's why Bush selected them, and that is why they have been picked up in the past.

Was never on the BOARD of Haliburton, was he? And maybe that's why he didn't start a pre-emptive war to throw business their way. As for Katrina, I sure hope we didn't pay them the whole contract up front.

Still, your point is well taken. I can only say that we could still be using Haliburton but negotiating with them for more reasonable prices. I hope the Democratic congress will do that.

So we're back where we started, I guess. I don't think this Gore thing is enough of a conflict of interest to bother with, you don't think Cheney's is either. 'kay.

I tried with piker and as usual liberals will go around in circles till your head explodes.

Liberals as usual will ignore facts that don't fit their pattern. When you hit back with facts they just go off on another tangent, or bring up something that makes no sense.

Your original post was great, but get a liberal like piker and he'll twist it up so much, circle around where you forget what started the thing in the first place.

Good luck, Madeline's Dad, and AmeriDan

Dick Cheney's investment in Halliburton?"

Cheney's investments are in a blind trust and have been since he's been Vice President. Think about it Piker, if one penny that has ever even been near Iraq made it into Cheney's pocket- it would be turned into the greatest scandal in the history of the world. The MSN is looking, and have been looking for that since day one. So far- nada.

As for the $45.00 case of coke, and the $100.00 per 15lb. laundry bill. I go back to my last point. If there is any company on the face of the earth that can do it cheaper, believe me, we would know about it. Your friends in the MSN never sleep in their tireless quest to bring down President Bush and Vice President Cheney. So far they have found...

****crickets chirping****

No company that can even come close to it, much less beat it.
I'm assuming, of
course, that the dollar amounts you quote are correct. I have my doubts though.

As far as Vice President Cheney starting a war. I could make a long list of act's of war waged against us by a certain "now deceased" dictator of Iraq- but I'll just give you my personal favorite reason. He gave orders to assassinate a former President of the United States of America.

Unlike your $45.00 case of coke, that is a proven fact. Just ask your friends in the MSN if you don't believe me. As much as I despise former Pesident Carter for his actions in and out of office...if another Country's leader tried the same thing with Carter that they tried with George H.W.Bush? It is an act of war and should be dealt with as such. Nuff said.

So who started what?

Hey Jevica.

Good to see you in the comments section again.

Piker may have his blinders on concerning foreign policy, and even domestic policy- but he is a rare and endangered species.

The last of the Democrats. Oh sure, we may not be able to understand his way of thinking (politically) most times. Okay, all of the time, but he's fun to debate with.

Because he's still sane. Wrong on politics in every direction (IMHO), yet still sane. Check out the comments in MadelinesDad's post above this one. I threw some snark to MadelinesDad, at the expense of Dr. Albert Gore. The man who invented the internet and global warming.

I also asked a question about the referenced "In & Out Burger". Piker walked right on by my snark and answered the question with nary a hint of politics. He didn't even blame Booosh for the long lines. I'm impressed.

Although I forgot to mention that the last time I went the line was too long and the burger was underdone, and that WAS Bush's fault. Damn him!

For the sake of brevity I'll concede your points about dollar accuracy, because I truly only have a press release from Chuck Schumer as my source. As for the press not finding cheaper war suppliers, two thoughts - Bidding is the best way to determine what these things would cost, and two: I can take that as proving that Clinton was completely absolved of any Whitewater involvement.

My question about Cheney's blind trust though - what does that mean? Is it simply that Cheney can't manage the funds himself, or are they frozen? If it's the former, obviously, he still gets the benefit in a couple of years. I honestly do not know.

You think that's bad, Bush once stoled my car keys and held them for three days- before he, or one of his evil minions, managed to slip them into the pocket of a coat I hadn't worn in.... get this.... three days! Coincidence? I think not. The really scary part is that it was only a few months after I started reading this blog- which is named- Where Are My Key's?!!!! Darn that Bush and his spying via the Patriot Act!!!!

As far as how a blind trust works, I'm clueless myself. But the point still stands. He, Cheney, is an elected office holder (believe it or not) so his financal records/life are pretty much an open book at this point- after 6 plus years. Picture two haystacks, one labeled Bush and the other Cheney. The MSN and their dark overlords in the Democrat Party have been obsessed with finding a needle of corruption in those haystacks. And are still coming out empty handed after all these years. So that means:

1.MSN/Dems are incompetent.

2.Bush/Cheney are honest and honorable men.

3.All of the above.

Piker, you know which answer I choose. Which one do you pick?

I think we can both agree on this though...

NO BLOOD FOR OIL!

The only problem is that you read that as a demand, and I read it as a fact. There is no war for oil and/or profits. If you honestly believe there is; I suggest you scroll back up and read my brilliant analogy concernig haystacks, and take the quiz again.

As in main stream media. You would think that with all the blogbucks MadelinesDad has pouring in from Townhall, he could get a preview feature. But no, he blows it all on family vacations and such. I bet he even has one of those savings accounts that are all the rage among the neocons these days.

Yeah, I've made a few myself - I don't think they pay MD in MONEY. He gets half-price admission to the other blogs.

Your un-tarnished faith in the goodness of the oil industry, and the men who run it, is delightful. Personally, I'm a little more cynical.

You disappoint me. You didn't take the quiz. I would really like to know your answer. You have accused the Vice Pesident of the United States of America... of starting a war for financial gain.

Very serious charges, yet the only evidence you offer is the high price of soft drinks and laundry services for our Troops in Iraq. And your source is Chuck Schumer! You've convinced me!

So since we're on the same team now..... why not take the quiz?

Pick an answer, or even add one. Just tell me why the MSM (got it right that time) and the Democrat Party can't find the smoking gun?

Would forbid a "smoking gun" from being found. However, why did we go to war? It wasn't over 9/11, right? And it's not because Iraq had any ties to Al-Quaeda. They used to say it was over weapons of mass destruction, but since those weren't found, the Administration has been insisting we are there because the Iraqi people were under the control of a ruthless tyrant.

So I'm to believe that we have comitted our troops and resources to this multi-decade venture solely to help a small select group of Muslims halfway around the world? How plausible is that?

it's a multiple choice, which can be boiled down as follows:

A. I'm an idiot.
B. You're abolutely right.
C. All of the above.

Forgive me for persuing other options.

I wrote that you could add another option, and you still won't answer. You did however change the wording, which turned around the point I was trying to make.

If we go by your wording of the quiz. I pick "B". But by my wording.... I pick #3, because I do not think that you are an idiot.

As far as the reason for invading Iraq- go back up and read my comment titled "What do you think about....", or I can save you the trouble and sum it up again.

On direct orders from Saddam Insane (now deseased), a team of assasions where sent out to murder, in cold blood, former President George W. Bush when he visited Kuwait after it's liberation from Iraq.

That is not a guess, or a suspicion, nor a rumor. That is a FACT. It was also an ACT OF WAR against the United States of America. If you would like the complete list of proven, documented acts of war that Saddam Insane's (now deceased) Iraq waged against our Country, I will send them to you. Make sure you have a lot of spare time though because it's a long list. And if you really want some war porn.... I'll tell you about the occupation of Kuwait by the Iraqi Army under Saddam's orders.

Let's prosecute the war until Saddam's government is taken down.

Why not, you know, mention it some time to the American people during the runup to the war?

I give a quiz with multitple answers to choose from, and you not only refuse to pick (or provide your own) answer- you keep running back to the sweet liberal warmth of the Dems talking points.

So I'll play along.

During the more than a half year RUSH TO WAR, there was nary a mention of the FACT that Saddam Insane (now deceased) ordered his bloodthirsty stormtroopers to invade Kuwait. Where rape, murder, and pillage was the order of the day... oh yeah, he also wanted to STEAL THEIR OIL!!! Nor can I remember hearing about how he bombed the Kurds in his own Country with poison gas. And those rape/torture rooms and mass graves that have been found? How dare President Bush not mention this, what did he know and when he know it?

Here's the icing on the cake though, never mentioned in that long and drawn out RUSH TO WAR. Saddam (who is now deceased) did the unthinkable. Please wrap that blanket of liberal talking points around you tightly because you'll need it.

Saddam, before sending his jackbooted little lambs out to rape Kuwait, did the unthinkable. He invaded IRAN!!!!! If we're playing your game, that's something that's off of the table for us. How dare a country bomb/invade another country without cause. Word on the street is that there were a few poisonous gas bombs dropped on Iran too, by Iraq. By Saddam's orders.

Who Knew?!!! Here I was going by the word of the United Nations, Bill Clinton, Jon Carrie, Algore, etc. Thankfully, they've all changed their "truth" and I know that those things happened.....BUT!!! He wasn't a threat to us. Because he didn't have one tiny scrap of WMD's. Or wish for our destruction at all.

Good stuff Piker. Hope that keeps you warm at night. If not, there's always GLOBAL WARMING!

watching a tennis match..

One side of the court seems to be smashing the ball a tad harder tho.. The Right side of the court, that is..

When Saddam invaded Kuwait, WE DID GO TO WAR with him. We dismanatled his war-making apparatus. You may recall that happened in 1991 or so. Why are we there THIS time?

You keep harping on the quiz... I'm choosing D: Bush/Cheney are power-grabbing thugs who started a war to please their business partners and provide a platform to expand the powers of the executive branch. If I'm charitable, I could say that they started the war because they were too stupid to read the intelligence and then took advantage of the situation to please their business partners and expand the powers of the executive branch. I'm flexible.

I hope you find it comforting that you can start an argument and it will just keep rolling on without you.

I'm glad to see that the kids were playing nice while Dad was away! :)