PDA

View Full Version : Halliburton's $85 million dollar tax rebate



Sniper
03-26-2003, 08:53 PM
:lol: Un-friggin-believable:

"Let's start by looking at the problem of the vice president and Halliburton. During the number two's time as the company's number one, the number of Halliburton subsidiaries registered in tax-friendly locations ballooned from nine in 1995 to 44 in 1999. The result? A dramatic drop in Halliburton's federal taxes, which fell from $302 million in 1998 to less than zero -- to wit, an $85 million rebate -- in 1999."

http://www.ariannaonline.com/columns/files/080502.html

What an ethical company!

Penthos
03-27-2003, 11:33 AM
I notice you didn't get any responses on this... probably because there is no way to defend it... I thinks its Typical. Its no wonder coporations are screwing the Government for hundreds of millions of tax dollars with impunity... Cheney helped write the book on it.

Here's another "issue" thats starting to piss me off.

How come the Senate Majority Leader, and the Sepaker of the House, both of whom are republicans, are both pushing this 10 BILLION Dollar Airline bailout...? Aren't conservatives supposed to be against welfare?

So I guess tax welfare money given to Corporations is ok, but give it to help out impoverished or handicapped children...? No way man, F#ck that! Let those crack babies and retarded kids get their own jobs to pay for their food and "special" education needs... I mean why should overpaid Corporate Executives and union workers of poorly run companies take pay cuts when the Government will just hand them over a check written from the account of the American taxpayer?

PhinPhan1227
03-27-2003, 11:40 AM
Originally posted by 13isgr81
I notice you didn't get any responses on this... probably because there is no way to defend it... I thinks its Typical. Its no wonder coporations are screwing the Government for hundreds of millions of tax dollars with impunity... Cheney helped write the book on it.

Here's another "issue" thats starting to piss me off.

How come the Senate Majority Leader, and the Sepaker of the House, both of whom are republicans, are both pushing this 10 BILLION Dollar Airline bailout...? Aren't conservatives supposed to be against welfare?

So I guess tax welfare money given to Corporations is ok, but give it to help out impoverished or handicapped children...? No way man, F#ck that! Let those crack babies and retarded kids get their own jobs to pay for their food and "special" education needs... I mean why should overpaid Corporate Executives and union workers of poorly run companies take pay cuts when the Government will just hand them over a check written from the account of the American taxpayer?

Careful...you said "overpaid union workers"....the Proletariat CAN'T be overpaid!!!....:rolleyes:

Penthos
03-27-2003, 11:45 AM
In the case of the Airline industry, yes they can... ;)

PhinPhan1227
03-27-2003, 11:48 AM
Gee...you must be old enough to remember the downfall of Eastern Airlines at the hands of it's wonderful labor unions....:)

Penthos
03-27-2003, 11:54 AM
Man that seems like forever ago... when was that?

Sniper
03-27-2003, 12:19 PM
Originally posted by 13isgr81
I notice you didn't get any responses on this... probably because there is no way to defend it... I thinks its Typical. Its no wonder coporations are screwing the Government for hundreds of millions of tax dollars with impunity... Cheney helped write the book on it.

Here's another "issue" thats starting to piss me off.

How come the Senate Majority Leader, and the Sepaker of the House, both of whom are republicans, are both pushing this 10 BILLION Dollar Airline bailout...? Aren't conservatives supposed to be against welfare?

So I guess tax welfare money given to Corporations is ok, but give it to help out impoverished or handicapped children...? No way man, F#ck that! Let those crack babies and retarded kids get their own jobs to pay for their food and "special" education needs... I mean why should overpaid Corporate Executives and union workers of poorly run companies take pay cuts when the Government will just hand them over a check written from the account of the American taxpayer?

I'm just as disgusted with them as you are. These Neoconservatives (true Conservatives should be against all welfare) claim they are 'fiscally responsible' and yet their actions speak otherwise. In fact, they are just as big if not bigger spenders than the most fiscally Liberal democrat in history ever was.

Look at "Homeland" security. (almost sounds like Fatherland security, doesn't it? ;)) We have these private companies that are simply passing their costs on to the American taxpayer. I'm sure the U.S. airline industry loves the fact that much of its security force is being paid for with tax dollars. So much for the arguement that private enterprise can do the job better and cheaper than the government can.

Yes, it does seem like the greedy corporate execs are pushing for less government regulation, but can't get in line fast enough when the government is handing them corporate welfare. I'd much rather see the poor get my money than some greedy corporate exec.

PhinPhan1227
03-27-2003, 12:19 PM
Early 80's if I remember correctly. A shining example of Labor Unions looking out for their members....NOT!

LeftCoastPhin
03-27-2003, 12:26 PM
Originally posted by 13isgr81
I notice you didn't get any responses on this... probably because there is no way to defend it... I thinks its Typical. Its no wonder coporations are screwing the Government for hundreds of millions of tax dollars with impunity... Cheney helped write the book on it.

Here's another "issue" thats starting to piss me off.

How come the Senate Majority Leader, and the Sepaker of the House, both of whom are republicans, are both pushing this 10 BILLION Dollar Airline bailout...? Aren't conservatives supposed to be against welfare?

So I guess tax welfare money given to Corporations is ok, but give it to help out impoverished or handicapped children...? No way man, F#ck that! Let those crack babies and retarded kids get their own jobs to pay for their food and "special" education needs... I mean why should overpaid Corporate Executives and union workers of poorly run companies take pay cuts when the Government will just hand them over a check written from the account of the American taxpayer?



I dont have all the details as I have the magazine article at home, but Tom Dachle's wife is a major representative for a big airline, which is one of the reasons they get bailed out. It's no secret Congress and Airlines are in bed together, as the Airlines are heavy contribuitors to campaigns, resulting in pre 9-11 lax safety standards (to save airlines money) and lax FAA. Afterall, FAA reports to Congress, and Congress reports to the Airlines!

What's really sad, is if the FAA was worth anything at all, they would have made it policy to strengthen the doors to the cockpits years ago, making it difficult if not impossible for terrorists with box cutters to come barging in. They knew for years the doors were unsafe when rowdy passengers banged their way in!

Sure, the FBI and CIA could have communicated better to prevent 9-11 and all that jazz, but IMO the real sinners of not preventing 9-11 is the FAA and Congress.

Sniper
03-27-2003, 12:28 PM
Why is it that labor unions makes 'demands' while management makes 'offers?'

Why is it always a 'labor dispute' instead of a management dispute?

It seems that the Corporate controlled media likes to automatically place the blame on labor, doesn't it?

Sniper
03-27-2003, 12:33 PM
Originally posted by LeftCoastPhin
I dont have all the details as I have the magazine article at home, but Tom Dachle's wife is a major representative for a big airline, which is one of the reasons they get bailed out. It's no secret Congress and Airlines are in bed together, as the Airlines are heavy contribuitors to campaigns, resulting in pre 9-11 lax safety standards (to save airlines money) and lax FAA. Afterall, FAA reports to Congress, and Congress reports to the Airlines!

What's really sad, is if the FAA was worth anything at all, they would have made it policy to strengthen the doors to the cockpits years ago, making it difficult if not impossible for terrorists with box cutters to come barging in. They knew for years the doors were unsafe when rowdy passengers banged their way in!

Sure, the FBI and CIA could have communicated better to prevent 9-11 and all that jazz, but IMO the real sinners of not preventing 9-11 is the FAA and Congress.

Excellent point Left. The door swings both ways on this one.

Strengthening the doors is a very good point also. It would be such an easy and cheap way to fix a serious problem.

Penthos
03-27-2003, 12:38 PM
Originally posted by LeftCoastPhin
I dont have all the details as I have the magazine article at home, but Tom Dachle's wife is a major representative for a big airline...

I heard on the radio that Daschle is not even supporting this bill. Which I would find ironic if true.

LeftCoastPhin
03-27-2003, 12:38 PM
If you look up FAA in the lay man's dictonary you'll see a picture of a stiffly dressed bureaucrat with his head buried in the sand. They are the epitomy of doing nothing about nothing, and taking a long time to do that nothing.

LeftCoastPhin
03-27-2003, 12:40 PM
Originally posted by 13isgr81
Ironically, my understanding is that Daschle is NOT supporting this bill... Thats just what I heard on the Radio so I could be wrong.


Hmmmm, well that could be the case now. But just a few short years ago, Daschle and his wife were having group sex with the Airlines!

Maybe it came out to the mass attention and he's trying to save face?

PhinPhan1227
03-27-2003, 12:45 PM
Originally posted by Sniper
Why is it that labor unions makes 'demands' while management makes 'offers?'

Why is it always a 'labor dispute' instead of a management dispute?

It seems that the Corporate controlled media likes to automatically place the blame on labor, doesn't it?


Actually I've seen reports which state that "Labor Unions balk at corporate demands for labor cutbacks". The answer to your question is simple Snippy...Labor is most often the party looking to change the status quo, so they have "demands". And management is most often responding to those demands with "offers". If you tell me to give you something, and I respond, how ELSE would you phrase it? I don't remember the "Corporate controlled media" making too many corporations look like good guys when they call for cutbacks and layoffs. Just the opposite. But that fact doesn't fit within your conspiracy worldview does it?

Penthos
03-27-2003, 01:03 PM
Originally posted by LeftCoastPhin
Hmmmm, well that could be the case now. But just a few short years ago, Daschle and his wife were having group sex with the Airlines!

Maybe it came out to the mass attention and he's trying to save face?

Perhaps in this case, he feels he doesn't need to back it because of the High Profile Republicanss pushing it already, that way he can at least avoid the appearance of impropriety.... Which is really all I ask... We all know there are going to be improprieties to some degree... at least have the decency to try to avoid the appearance of it... (Cheney, and Halliburton Im looking at you)

PhinPhan1227
03-27-2003, 01:14 PM
Originally posted by 13isgr81
Perhaps in this case, he feels he doesn't need to back it because of the High Profile Republicanss pushing it already, that way he can at least avoid the appearance of impropriety.... Which is really all I ask... We all know there are going to be improprieties to some degree... at least have the decency to try to avoid the appearance of it... (Cheney, and Halliburton Im looking at you)


Lol...Call me crazy, but I prefer openly unethical behavior to hidden unethical behavior. It's stuff like this that represents the worst elements of politicing to my way of thinking. If you're in bed with a certain industry, at least be honest enough to let people KNOW you're in bed with them.

Penthos
03-27-2003, 01:18 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
Lol...Call me crazy, but I prefer openly unethical behavior to hidden unethical behavior. It's stuff like this that represents the worst elements of politicing to my way of thinking. If you're in bed with a certain industry, at least be honest enough to let people KNOW you're in bed with them.

Hmm, ok I see that point and to extent I agree... but then its almost like flaunting it in your face... I guess I would just prefer poiticians be honest... hahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha... Honest Politicians!!! hahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha...

Sniper
03-27-2003, 01:20 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
Actually I've seen reports which state that "Labor Unions balk at corporate demands for labor cutbacks". The answer to your question is simple Snippy...Labor is most often the party looking to change the status quo, so they have "demands". And management is most often responding to those demands with "offers". If you tell me to give you something, and I respond, how ELSE would you phrase it? I don't remember the "Corporate controlled media" making too many corporations look like good guys when they call for cutbacks and layoffs. Just the opposite. But that fact doesn't fit within your conspiracy worldview does it?

Such articles are few and far between. There is a disturbing lack of balance on this issue, especially in the mainstream media. As for the corporate controlled media not making other corporations look good, all I can say is even if you put perfume on a skunk it will still stink.

Have you ever seen an actual contract "negotiation" before? I'm sure that you say that you have :rolleyes:

Demand does not mean changing the status quo nor is an offer simply a response. Before you obfusicate these words, let's at least get them right:

A demand means to insist on; an offer means to present for approval or rejection

Both sides make demands and offers. Technically, both sides make demands and counter-demands, and offers and counter-offers.

PhinPhan1227
03-27-2003, 01:26 PM
Originally posted by Sniper
Such articles are few and far between. There is a disturbing lack of balance on this issue, especially in the mainstream media. As for the corporate controlled media not making other corporations look good, all I can say is even if you put perfume on a skunk it will still stink.

Have you ever seen an actual contract "negotiation" before? I'm sure that you say that you have :rolleyes:

Demand does not mean changing the status quo nor is an offer simply a response. Before you obfusicate these words, let's at least get them right:

A demand means to insist on; an offer means to present for approval or rejection

Both sides make demands and offers. Technically, both sides make demands and counter-demands, and offers and counter-offers.


That ignores the fact that the party who is initiating the action IS making a demand, and the other party is making an offer in response. Again, if the corporation is the one making a "demand" for labor or paycuts, the media will always represent the Unions as making an "offer" in response. Given the number of layoffs/cutbacks in recent years, I'd say that reports of THAT nature have become quite common. You can play semantics all you want, but it seems to me that the media is ACTUALLY being very even handed in this instance(a nice change), since they apply the exact smame teminology to both sides, the only determining factor being who initiates the action. Oh, and as for negotiating contracts, I'm an Executive Recruiter, and have to handle contract, and offer letter negotiations on a daily basis. The difference there is that both parties are generaly coming to the table as equals, so both sides make offers, rather than demands.

SWS84
03-27-2003, 06:20 PM
Originally posted by Sniper
Why is it that labor unions makes 'demands' while management makes 'offers?'

Why is it always a 'labor dispute' instead of a management dispute?

It seems that the Corporate controlled media likes to automatically place the blame on labor, doesn't it?


but I assume the reason why some folks do not want to discuss anything with you anymore is because you are devisive and emotionally screwed up. This forum has become a battle for you and I think you have slipped off the deep end. Your rant and rave about everything, yet I haven't read one thing (albiet, I haven't read all your posts) where you offer a solution or something positive. I'm not perfect, and I am saying this because I think you should be, but I really believe your expectations of people are very demanding and totally unrealistic for society.

Penthos
03-27-2003, 09:36 PM
Originally posted by SWS84
but I assume the reason why some folks do not want to discuss anything with you anymore is because you are devisive and emotionally screwed up. This forum has become a battle for you and I think you have slipped off the deep end. Your rant and rave about everything, yet I haven't read one thing (albiet, I haven't read all your posts) where you offer a solution or something positive. I'm not perfect, and I am saying this because I think you should be, but I really believe your expectations of people are very demanding and totally unrealistic for society.

SWS, I DISAGREE with pretty much your entire post... I don't think that he is using this board to espouse his personal ideology anymore than most others around here... Nor do I find his posts irrational or emotionally unstable... But then again I'm not a republican...

SWS84
03-27-2003, 09:41 PM
Originally posted by 13isgr81
SWS, I DISAGREE with pretty much your entire post... I don't think that he is using this board to espouse his personal ideology anymore than most others around here... Nor do I find his posts irrational or emotionally unstable... But then again I'm not a republican...


Neither am I. I said my piece and won't comment any further.

Peebs
03-28-2003, 12:23 AM
Originally posted by SWS84
but I assume the reason why some folks do not want to discuss anything with you anymore is because you are devisive and emotionally screwed up. This forum has become a battle for you and I think you have slipped off the deep end. Your rant and rave about everything, yet I haven't read one thing (albiet, I haven't read all your posts) where you offer a solution or something positive. I'm not perfect, and I am saying this because I think you should be, but I really believe your expectations of people are very demanding and totally unrealistic for society.

Right sentiment direct towards the WRONG poster......
Someone ELSE has used this forum as a personal opinion battle zone and it ain't Sniper.

PhinPhan1227
03-28-2003, 10:07 AM
Of COURSE this BBS is a "personal opinion battle zone". The vast majority of what's posted here is personal opinion, so what ELSE would you call it? I'll fully "admit" that I express my opinion when I post, why else would I be here? I think that what SWS was griping about was the same thing I've griped about. Some posters (Sniper certainly included), have a tendency to complain about something, without presenting a viable solution to that problem. As an example..."I don't think Israel should have taken out the Iraqi nuke plant....but I don't have to give an answer to what the consequences of that inaction would have been". I don't think that SWS cares if Sniper gives his opinion, I just think he'd like to hear something CONstructive, rather than just DEstructive every once in a while.

Penthos
03-28-2003, 10:19 AM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
I don't think that SWS cares if Sniper gives his opinion, I just think he'd like to hear something CONstructive, rather than just DEstructive every once in a while.

I don't see it that way, the constructive solutions are so simple I should hardly think you need them spelled out... but I'll do it. Oh and this goes for the REPS and DEMS:

Stop being corrupt, stop using your position with the government as a tool for your own personal gain... Stop being influenced by lobbyists with fat wallets... Stop telling me social welfare is bad while perpetuating corporate welfare... Start putting lives before the dollar...

Thats kind of what I get out of it...

PhinPhan1227
03-28-2003, 10:42 AM
Originally posted by 13isgr81
I don't see it that way, the constructive solutions are so simple I should hardly think you need them spelled out... but I'll do it. Oh and this goes for the REPS and DEMS:

Stop being corrupt, stop using your position with the government as a tool for your own personal gain... Stop being influenced by lobbyists with fat wallets... Stop telling me social welfare is bad while perpetuating corporate welfare... Start putting lives before the dollar...

Thats kind of what I get out of it...


And while we're at it...love thy neighbor, turn the other cheek, and don't covet thy neighbors stuff. I have no problem with people expressing their ideals. As I said to Sniper, I'd give my right arm to make the world be as he envisions it. But what's FRUSTRATING is when someone declares goals OVER AND OVER, without ANY mechanism to achieve those goals. It's like those Dolphins fans who clamor for big dollar Free Agents, but ignore the amount of cap room we have. You can call for an end to corruption, but how about presenting a WAY to end corruption. The last uncorruptable President we had was also probably the first one, and it only gets worse the lower you go on the political food chain. That's what's frustrating to me, and I think to some others...give us a SOLUTION, don't just rehash the PROBLEM.

Penthos
03-28-2003, 11:34 AM
The conservative argument might be:
Why does the Government need to provide a way for people to be honest... Why should the government do for people what they should do for themselves.... People should be honest on their own without needing help...

The Realistic answer?: Take the temptation out of being in the government. Start with elections, sweeping campaign finance reform... Give each politician the same amount of money to campaign with, allowing no private/corporate "donations" to campaign funds... Then put in place strict "conflict of interest rules". For example; sure Halliburton can have those contracts, if they are the best company. But Cheney should not be allowed to profit from it, so he would be required to sell his interest in the company or step down...

So i have offered solutions... they may have some holes and might not be perfect but its a start...

PhinPhan1227
03-28-2003, 11:43 AM
Originally posted by 13isgr81
The conservative argument might be:
Why does the Government need to provide a way for people to be honest... Why should the government do for people what they should do for themselves.... People should be honest on their own without needing help...

The Realistic answer?: Take the temptation out of being in the government. Start with elections, sweeping campaign finance reform... Give each politician the same amount of money to campaign with, allowing no private/corporate "donations" to campaign funds... Then put in place strict "conflict of interest rules". For example; sure Halliburton can have those contracts, if they are the best company. But Cheney should not be allowed to profit from it, so he would be required to sell his interest in the company or step down...

So i have offered solutions... they may have some holes and might not be perfect but its a start...


Great....and I applaud you for doing so. Nobody said the solutions had to be perfect, but at LEAST they're something to talk about. To address those issues...If you're going to force every person who serves in office to divest themselves of any potential conflicts, you're going to eliminate the vast majority of those who have been successful in business, because you'll be asking them to give up business' they've either founded, or helped grow. Basically, you're eliminating the majority of people who are most qualified in my opinion. As for campaign funding/finance, there ARE freedom of speech issues. If I have the money to support a candidate, I should be able to do so, by the same token that a person can volunteer their time to a candidate. And further, how are you going to limit possibly biased media outlets influencing voters? The current system isn't perfect, and it needs work, but I disagree that we can ever completely even the field. I DO however want to thank you once again for presenting AN idea of how the sytem can be fixed, rather than just railing about what's wrong with it.

Penthos
03-28-2003, 12:00 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
Great....and I applaud you for doing so. Nobody said the solutions had to be perfect, but at LEAST they're something to talk about. To address those issues...If you're going to force every person who serves in office to divest themselves of any potential conflicts, you're going to eliminate the vast majority of those who have been successful in business, because you'll be asking them to give up business' they've either founded, or helped grow. Basically, you're eliminating the majority of people who are most qualified in my opinion. As for campaign funding/finance, there ARE freedom of speech issues. If I have the money to support a candidate, I should be able to do so, by the same token that a person can volunteer their time to a candidate. And further, how are you going to limit possibly biased media outlets influencing voters? The current system isn't perfect, and it needs work, but I disagree that we can ever completely even the field. I DO however want to thank you once again for presenting AN idea of how the sytem can be fixed, rather than just railing about what's wrong with it.


Ok. First, I don't mean divest everyone of everything... all I am saying is divest them of holdings that make a profit from government contracts, especially ones they havce influence over... I'm not saying thats the letter of the rule, but something to that effect....

As far as freedom of speech via campaign contributions... Even if that IS considered a form of free speech that doesn't mean it can't be stopped... We restrict the rights of individuals for the benefit of the overall society all the time... For example, I could argue that going out to the street corner with a bullhorn and yelling obecenities is freedom of speech, I would get arrested because the manner in which I am excerising my right is detrumental to the whole of society... Other wise I should be able to rent roadside billboards and put pictures up pictures of pornography if I so inclined...

The same argument can be made for campaign funding.. Ok, yes its a form of free speech, but because of the corruption effect, its more detrumental to society then the beneficial...

PhinPhan1227
03-28-2003, 12:13 PM
But many would argue that campaign contributions are at the HEART of free speech. If you tell me I can't contribute to a candidate, I'll argue that Susan Sarandon can't use her celebrity to support her candidate. And you can't volunteer your time to support your candidate. And NBC Channel 7 can't comment/support on any candidates. You can't discriminate against someone because they have money as opposed to fame, or media influence. People have been financing candidates elections since our nation was founded...And comparing that to shouting obsenities is a different matter. You actually CAN shout obsenities, if you can show that it's an integral part of your message....and you get a permit. You just can't infringe on someone elses rights in the pursuit of your rights. If I want to give 10k to a candidate, you are perfectly free to also give whatever you choose to a candidate...time, money, letters to the editor...whatever. As for your first point, if a politician has direct control over who wins a contract, he's already required to remove himself from that position. If there's undue influence, it's a violation of the law. As I've said beofre, lets enforce the laws we HAVE, before we right any new ones.

Penthos
03-28-2003, 12:27 PM
I disagree that camp contribs are the heart of free speech. Because now you are saying thta MONEY is the heart of free speech, the more money you have, the louder your voice... not fair.

Not for profits with different motives than Exxon aren't heard... I do not gauge the worth of a mans word by the size of his wallet... Which is exactly whate you are saying.

PhinPhan1227
03-28-2003, 12:48 PM
Originally posted by 13isgr81
I disagree that camp contribs are the heart of free speech. Because now you are saying thta MONEY is the heart of free speech, the more money you have, the louder your voice... not fair.

Not for profits with different motives than Exxon aren't heard... I do not gauge the worth of a mans word by the size of his wallet... Which is exactly whate you are saying.

That's not at ALL what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that supporting a candidate/platform is at the heart of free speech. What I'm ALSO saying is that it's a violation of that free speech to say that someone can contribute by giving time, or media support, but not by giving money. What your suggesting would allow those with other kinds of influence to contribute, but not those with money, and that's discrimination. Further, nobody said free speech has to be fair. If I'm a musician, I can write a song which may influence peoples thoughts. I CERTAINLY have an unfair advantage over you as a regular person, but are you going to tell me I can't write that song? If my last name is Kennedy, and I haven't yet been convicted of killing or raping someone(maybe even then), I have a better chance at winning election than someone named Rabinowitz in Massachusets, but should I be forced to change my name? If someone has worked to make thier wealth, be it 10k or 10 million, they deserve the right to use that wealth as they see fit.

Penthos
03-28-2003, 12:55 PM
There is validity to your point, and yes there are still fairness issues that would need to be resolved. But those are different types of factors, and as I said I am not writing the specifics of the rules, only the spirit...

But to continue the argument... you have other people who work just as hard if not harder in less profitable other fields that are just as socially worthy that don't make a lot of money... There voices aren't as loud as the guy who inherited dads oil riches and hasn't worked a day in his life but knows he wants a republican president because they like oil too. Its seems a byproduct of this is that a Teacher, a Policeman, a Firefighter, nor a Soldier have as much freedom of speech as the Hilton Sisters... Does that seem right?

Again I am just exploring an idea... not writing the Guidelines...

Besides, although I did orignally include private donations in my "solution", I am mostly concerned about the influence Corporate donations have on candidates then private ones...

PhinPhan1227
03-28-2003, 01:10 PM
Originally posted by 13isgr81
There is validity to your point, and yes there are still fairness issues that would need to be resolved. But those are different types of factors, and as I said I am not writing the specifics of the rules, only the spirit...

But to continue the argument... you have other people who work just as hard if not harder in less profitable other fields that are just as socially worthy that don't make a lot of money... There voices aren't as loud as the guy who inherited dads oil riches and hasn't worked a day in his life but knows he wants a republican president because they like oil too. Its seems a byproduct of this is that a Teacher, a Policeman, a Firefighter, nor a Soldier have as much freedom of speech as the Hilton Sisters... Does that seem right?

Again I am just exploring an idea... not writing the Guidelines...

Besides, although I did orignally include private donations in my "solution", I am mostly concerned about the influence Corporate donations have on candidates then private ones...

Corporate donations are already limited. But again, I pose the question, what's the difference between the influence wielded by an actor, or musician, and that wielded by Donald Trump? Both are MUCH more influential than a neighborhood firefighter. But bear in mind that the firefighter could also volunteer time, or could start a grass roots movement if he wanted to. There's no WAY it's ever going to be "fair", but at least it's open, and that's really all anyone can ask in my opinion.

Penthos
03-28-2003, 02:42 PM
And how much time would a fire fighter have to volunteer to make as much of a publicly seen and politically influencal statement or movement as a corporation like Exxon/Mobil can with a Million dollar donation... I mean come on seriously, lets deal with reality, you ask any candidate whether they would rather have a $1,000,000 dollars in their re-election fund or the services of a fire fighter volunteering his spare time of few times a week...

Also, just for the sake of argument... you ask "what's the difference between the influence wielded by an actor, or musician, and that wielded by Donald Trump?"... I would answer that its not the influence that matters... its the motive behind the influence and the result of the influence that matters. Do you really think Mobil Oil lobbies politicians and donates to politcians for less restrictive fuel emmissions standards so it can make the world a better place? I mean come on... You can't REALLY believe that...

Although you and I may not agree with most actors... I would guess that when they speak out it is unsually because of personal beliefs and not because they are trying to influence a regulation that will affect their bottom line. I won't say that this is never the case but usually I believe it probably is.... Can you say the same about Exxon or Halliburton?

Exxon lobbies and donates for the SOLE PURPOSE of making more money in the end, even if its to the detrument of the over all good.

So if your are exercising your freedom of speech for the "betterment" of society fine, but if you are doing it to make a buck at the "expense" of society then forget it.

PhinPhan1227
03-28-2003, 03:04 PM
That's all well and good...but if you can find a way to legislate "intent", you deserve to be voted into office right NOW!! I'll counter your argument with this...When an actor/musician/artist makes a statement, I'm sure that they're speaking from their hearts, and DO believe that they're working for the "greater good". I also however believe that the head of ANY corporation is doing the same thing when they act. What you may not realize is that EVERYONE is the hero of their own autobiography. The head of JR Reynolds knows that his cigarrets kill thousands of people every year. But I'd bet anything that he also believes that he's doing a good thing by employing thousands of people in his company. I don't agree with him, but I can promise you he feels justified in his actions. Regardless of who the person is(ok, Enron/Global Crossing execs aside), they're going to find a justification for their actions. Walter Cornkite, and RFK jr are both staunch environmentalists, but that didn't stop them from fighting against a wind farm off the Mass coast. They argued that it would detract from the view/value of the beach front, even though the wind farm would help reduce the need for a dirty coal fired power plant in the area. The point is, I'm sure that in their hearts, they DO believe that they're doing the right thing, even though those actions are purely self serving. Likewise, you can't say that an actress/artist/musician can try to sway peoples opinions, but a corporation can't. You want to talk Orwelian? THAT'S Orwelian. You want to legislate what you think is in peoples hearts and minds, and THAT'S terrifying.

Penthos
03-28-2003, 03:26 PM
No, I don't want to legislate whats in the minds of the people... but i don't want to allow corporations to profit from financial influence on politicians...

And last time I checked, corporations CANT VOTE, so why should they have political influence... If the president of an oil company wants to donate to a campaign fund then fine, let him do so out of his own pocket...

If Exxon is so bent on supporting a Candidate then let them produce there own commercials saying "Exxon thinks George Bush deserves your vote"... That would be a corporation exercising freedom of speech... And the people would know exactly who is supporting the candidate.... As it stands now you have to research which corps donated to whom, and for good reason... Because people are smart enought o put 2 and 2 together, just like Haliburton and Cheney...

And quite frankly, Sniper gets criticized for not offering solutions... Well no fricking wonder.... every idea and argument I have put forth you have argued against. Yet you complain about people not offering solutions and only pointing out problems...

The problem is greed, the only way to overcome it is to remove the cause... Do you see another way? Where are your solutions... Or are you happy with the corrupt system as it is..? Sure its the best one in the world... but does that mean it can't be made better?

PhinPhan1227
03-28-2003, 03:49 PM
Ok...I'm arguing your points...BUT THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE!! If I make a point, I EXPECT people to argue it. But I've seen people ask why some of Snippers posts don't get any responses, and THAT'S WHY!! He frequently puts nothing out there TO argue. I appreciate the fact that you're putting forth a sloution...but can't you appreciate when someone constructively criticises it? Now, dealing with the points you brought up...You have a valid point that corporations can't vote, and therefore might not be entitled to Free Speech protection. But again, if you're willing to do that, you'll need to eliminate the lobby groups, and the "backing" of organizations like Unions, and such. If Exxon can't give money to a Candidate, the UAW can't either. Nor can the Fire Fighters Association of Florida throw their support behind a particular candidate. My solution, as I said, is to better enforce the laws we have NOW. I have no problem with further monitoring methods being employed. I'd like to see better laws for requiring all contributions to be available to the public. Our basic difference of opinion comes down to this...in my opinion, if a person is going to be corrupt, they'll find a way to be corrupt. "Taking away the cause" is impossible, because all you're taking away is one avenue for the satisfaction of that greed. It's like saying the way to end bank robbery is by taking away all the banks. Again, my solution is this...if we need new laws, make laws that allow for more transparency in contributions. Then leave it up to the voters to decide whether they want to elect someone who is taking money for doing favors. If the voters want to be idiots, that's their right. I just left Houston after 5 years where the mayor was reelected despite being the most fiscally irresponcible Mayor in that city's history. He was reelected because the vast majority of the city's black population wanted to keep a balck mayor. Noit because he was the best guy for the job, just because he's black(they even did polls around town, so I'm not talking out of my ass here). In my opinion, the city got what it deserved. That's the beauty of Democracy, the people get what they deserve.

Penthos
03-28-2003, 04:17 PM
"But again, if you're willing to do that, you'll need to eliminate the lobby groups, and the "backing" of organizations like Unions, and such. If Exxon can't give money to a Candidate, the UAW can't either. Nor can the Fire Fighters Association of Florida throw their support behind a particular candidate"....

Very valid point and I can live with that...

"My solution, as I said, is to better enforce the laws we have NOW."
Completely agree with that as well.. However, I will say that part of the reason the laws arent being enforced right now is because its not in "someone's" financial intrest to enforce them like in the case of American companies evading taxes through offshore subsidiaries.

But see we aren't so far apart, I just think that we argue more than we need to because we don't clearly understand each other... but we are more in line than one might think. See if we were congressional members of different parties this would be called Bi-Partisan progress.

PhinPhan1227
03-28-2003, 04:26 PM
I know we aren't too far apart...and as for enforcing the laws better...the people who actually enforce the laws and make things run aren't elected officials, they're lifetime beaurocrats. They're the ones who make it so difficult to effect change, and they're also the reason why I trust government programs even less than private ones. See, we really DO agree, it's just that you distrust Big Business more, and I distrust Big Government more...not black and white...just shades of gray..

Sniper
03-28-2003, 07:56 PM
Originally posted by SWS84
but I assume the reason why some folks do not want to discuss anything with you anymore is because you are devisive and emotionally screwed up. This forum has become a battle for you and I think you have slipped off the deep end. Your rant and rave about everything, yet I haven't read one thing (albiet, I haven't read all your posts) where you offer a solution or something positive. I'm not perfect, and I am saying this because I think you should be, but I really believe your expectations of people are very demanding and totally unrealistic for society.

All I can say is people need to be aware of problems if there is to be any hope of finding a solution to them. The idea that "if you can't say something nice, then don't say it at all" doesn't apply here. We have a patriotic duty to question and criticize our elected and appointed officials. The reason our government is as messed up as it is, is because people have been derelict in these duties.

As far as being devisive, that's the price we have to pay for free speech. I'll gladly listen to another viewpoint that I disagree with instead of not having this right. Further, just because there is a war, why should I blindly support this president who I disagree with? I reserve my right to think for myself and not act like some automaton.

I really don't care if you or anybody else disagrees with my posts. Nobody is forcing you to read them, so if they bother you, then my "solution" to you is put me on ignore. It's that simple. Peace.

Sniper
03-28-2003, 08:02 PM
Originally posted by 13isgr81
I don't see it that way, the constructive solutions are so simple I should hardly think you need them spelled out... but I'll do it. Oh and this goes for the REPS and DEMS:

Stop being corrupt, stop using your position with the government as a tool for your own personal gain... Stop being influenced by lobbyists with fat wallets... Stop telling me social welfare is bad while perpetuating corporate welfare... Start putting lives before the dollar...

Thats kind of what I get out of it...

Excellent perspective. These solutions are common sense and people should be able to come to these solutions by thinking for themselves.

Sniper
03-28-2003, 10:23 PM
Originally posted by Peebs
Right sentiment direct towards the WRONG poster......
Someone ELSE has used this forum as a personal opinion battle zone and it ain't Sniper.

Thank you Peebs and 13isgr81!

PhinPhan1227
03-30-2003, 10:20 PM
Originally posted by Sniper
Excellent perspective. These solutions are common sense and people should be able to come to these solutions by thinking for themselves.


Lol..."Common Sense" is the penultimate oxymoron. I'd go through the "Frog and the scorpion" parable, but I don't want to get preachy. Suffice it to say that "can't we all just get along?" is a wonderful sentiment, but not exactly the soultion when a guy has a gun pointed in your face. And, "don't be greedy, don't be corrupt" is a great rallying cry, but so long as ALL you've got is the wish, it'll never be a reality.

PhinPhan1227
03-30-2003, 10:32 PM
Originally posted by Sniper
All I can say is people need to be aware of problems if there is to be any hope of finding a solution to them. The idea that "if you can't say something nice, then don't say it at all" doesn't apply here. We have a patriotic duty to question and criticize our elected and appointed officials. The reason our government is as messed up as it is, is because people have been derelict in these duties.

As far as being devisive, that's the price we have to pay for free speech. I'll gladly listen to another viewpoint that I disagree with instead of not having this right. Further, just because there is a war, why should I blindly support this president who I disagree with? I reserve my right to think for myself and not act like some automaton.

I really don't care if you or anybody else disagrees with my posts. Nobody is forcing you to read them, so if they bother you, then my "solution" to you is put me on ignore. It's that simple. Peace.


Sniper, you may feel like you're exposing the evils of the world, but to many here, you're just bitching. Now, if this was the Oprah Winfrey BBS, and we were all just here to "share our feelings", you'd be spot on in your posts. However, since this is a predominantly male BBS(with apologies to Peebs, and any other females here), I see no reason not to point out that unless you've GOT a solution to a problem, merely pointing that problem out OVER and over, is about as usefull as tits on a boar(sorry, I'm apparently channeling John Wayne tonight). And of COURSE you have the right to question, berate, and even ridicule the President, and any other elected official. And when the rest of us choose to ignore you, we will also be exercising our rights. In fact, you're protesting an attack which was never made. You will notice that nobody ever referred to YOU complaining that people were ignoring you. 13isgr81 made note that nobody had responded to the post, and we were just telling him why. No reason to feel persecuted...McCarthy is NOT in the building:rolleyes:

Sniper
03-31-2003, 06:28 AM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
Sniper, you may feel like you're exposing the evils of the world, but to many here, you're just bitching. Now, if this was the Oprah Winfrey BBS, and we were all just here to "share our feelings", you'd be spot on in your posts. However, since this is a predominantly male BBS(with apologies to Peebs, and any other females here), I see no reason not to point out that unless you've GOT a solution to a problem, merely pointing that problem out OVER and over, is about as usefull as tits on a boar(sorry, I'm apparently channeling John Wayne tonight). And of COURSE you have the right to question, berate, and even ridicule the President, and any other elected official. And when the rest of us choose to ignore you, we will also be exercising our rights. In fact, you're protesting an attack which was never made. You will notice that nobody ever referred to YOU complaining that people were ignoring you. 13isgr81 made note that nobody had responded to the post, and we were just telling him why. No reason to feel persecuted...McCarthy is NOT in the building:rolleyes:

First that post wasn't addressed to you, it was an open post meant for SWS. So if anybody is here bitching about something, then that would be you jackass.

Secondly, are you stupidly trying to tell me that pointing out problems doesn't get anything accomplished? You can make that asinine claim all you want, but the facts show otherwise. The role of public scrutiny is very important for a free and democratic society. This is one reason why we have freedom of speech and freedom of the press. I'm sure you and your Right Wing buddies would love to have freedom of speech contingent upon being able to offer a solution.

Public scrutiny played a central role in getting Nixon to resign for the Watergate scandal. Public scrutiny combined with public protest was very important for helping end the Vietnam War. And finally, public scrutiny was very important for Halliburton recently dropping its bid for this contract.

Frankly, this "you need to offer a solution in order to say something" theory is idiotic; even for you.

PhinPhan1227
03-31-2003, 02:49 PM
Originally posted by Sniper
First that post wasn't addressed to you, it was an open post meant for SWS. So if anybody is here bitching about something, then that would be you jackass.

Secondly, are you stupidly trying to tell me that pointing out problems doesn't get anything accomplished? You can make that asinine claim all you want, but the facts show otherwise. The role of public scrutiny is very important for a free and democratic society. This is one reason why we have freedom of speech and freedom of the press. I'm sure you and your Right Wing buddies would love to have freedom of speech contingent upon being able to offer a solution.

Public scrutiny played a central role in getting Nixon to resign for the Watergate scandal. Public scrutiny combined with public protest was very important for helping end the Vietnam War. And finally, public scrutiny was very important for Halliburton recently dropping its bid for this contract.


Frankly, this "you need to offer a solution in order to say something" theory is idiotic; even for you.


Lol....really feelin' the love Snippy. You know, for a pacifist, you've got a heck of a mouth:lol: . That aside, you can try to claim the role of whistle blower, but once again, it's a crock. Protest didn't get us out of Vietnam...we were in for almost a freakin' decade after all...losing the war got us out of Vietnam. But as I've said, and you've chosen to once again ignore, I absolutely defend(and HAVE defended), your right to voice your opinion(ad nauseum). And again, my only request of you or any of your somewhat deluded cronies, is that you not trample on my right to ignore that opinion. Cheers Snippy.

Penthos
03-31-2003, 03:05 PM
Yet Sniper's point about the need for public scrutiny stands...

PhinPhan1227
03-31-2003, 03:58 PM
Originally posted by 13isgr81
Yet Sniper's point about the need for public scrutiny stands...


Lol...."Public Scrutiny" is a billion dollar a year industry here in the US. There isn't a single issue or point which Sniper has brought up that I didn't hear about first on NBC or CNN. The reason I go to a BBS is to discuss SOLUTIONS to the problems that are addressed ad-nauseum on television. Other people have already reported everything that he reprints...none of it is new. If he wants to do anything of substance, let him come up with SOME solution. Quite honestly, if all he's going to do is report, why should anyone respond? Do you feel the need to talk back to your TV? Does Peter Jennings need to hear your feedback?

Penthos
03-31-2003, 04:13 PM
Ok.... so what?? People hear and see things on tv or radio and subsequently report and discuss them on message boards all the time, hence half the topics on all message boards...

"LOL...."Public Scrutiny" is a billion dollar a year industry here in the US...." What are you trying to imply?... That because its a billion dollar a year business its not important, or its somehow less valid? Whats your point? Healthcare is a billion dollar a year business. Food service is a billion dollar a year business.

....And be honest, if Sniper was here bitching about the war protesters or the bleeding hearts, I hardly think you would be telling him to quit complaining and start providing solutions...

PhinPhan1227
03-31-2003, 04:54 PM
Originally posted by 13isgr81
Ok.... so what?? People hear and see things on tv or radio and subsequently report and discuss them on message boards all the time, hence half the topics on all message boards...

"LOL...."Public Scrutiny" is a billion dollar a year industry here in the US...." What are you trying to imply?... That because its a billion dollar a year business its not important, or its somehow less valid? Whats your point? Healthcare is a billion dollar a year business. Food service is a billion dollar a year business.

....And be honest, if Sniper was here bitching about the war protesters or the bleeding hearts, I hardly think you would be telling him to quit complaining and start providing solutions...

Look, it comes down to this...if you want to have a discussion, you need to have something to discuss. If I post a news item about a Congressman calling US soldiers baby killers, I'm doing it because many people probably aren't aware of because the mainstream media didn't bother to report it. But if nobody wants to respond to it, I'm not going to piss and moan about it. There's not really anything to discuss except for that Congressman being a scumbag. Likewise, when Snippy posts his links, there isn't much to discuss there. Look, when you presented your solution, to the problems with campaign finance, there was something to discuss. There was something to be addressed. As I said before, if Snippy or anyone else wants to just "share their feelings", they should either go to Oprah's BBS, or not complain when people don't respond. It's that simple, exercise your rights of free speech, and respect my right to ignore you. Oh, and those who are bitching about the more militant war protestors HAVE presented a solution....arrest their sorry asses....:evil:

Penthos
03-31-2003, 09:29 PM
Oh yea phinphan? Well you're ugly... :goof:

Sniper
03-31-2003, 09:55 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
The reason I go to a BBS is to discuss SOLUTIONS to the problems that are addressed ad-nauseum on television.

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Yeah... sure you do :rolleyes:

One of these days you might wake up and realize that people can spot your B.S. a mile a way.

Sniper
03-31-2003, 10:08 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
they should either go to Oprah's BBS, or not complain when people don't respond.

I find it a little "odd" that you know what topics are discussed on Operah's show. I think you are the first guy I have ever met that watches the show :lol: I also can't think of any reason how a regular guy would know that she has a bulletin board that people post to :lol: Maybe I'll do some web research to find out what you find so fascinating about her.

Sniper
03-31-2003, 10:21 PM
OMG!!! She really does have message boards and 1227 actually KNEW this obscure fact!!! :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

http://boards.oprah.com/WebX?14@@.ef45793!DYNID=FUEVX35OIXPA5LARAYFCFEQ

The real reason you whine so much is very clear to me now. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

PhinPhan1227
04-01-2003, 01:10 PM
Originally posted by Sniper
OMG!!! She really does have message boards and 1227 actually KNEW this obscure fact!!! :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

http://boards.oprah.com/WebX?14@@.ef45793!DYNID=FUEVX35OIXPA5LARAYFCFEQ

The real reason you whine so much is very clear to me now. Not that there's anything wrong with that.


Lol....sorry Snippy, but 13isgr81's "Well you're ugly" was a better hit. In case you missed it, I was referring to the female need to "share" their problems, as opposed to the male need to "fix" problems. And since Oprah is the diva of womanhood, I used her as an Avatar for your posting style. Of course, now that you've FOUND her BBS(who DOESN'T have a BBS?), I hope you'll still post here every once in a while....:lol:

MDFINFAN
09-14-2008, 06:00 PM
Early 80's if I remember correctly. A shining example of Labor Unions looking out for their members....NOT!

I'm not for or against unions, but if unions didn't exist what do you think the avg pay and benefit package of workers would look like? I'm just curious on your thought on this.

phinfan3411
09-14-2008, 08:08 PM
Imo we would have more manufacturing jobs. Also, if you are for unions, my guess is that you are in one, or a family member has benefited from one, you do not work with them.

MDFINFAN
09-14-2008, 09:02 PM
Imo we would have more manufacturing jobs. Also, if you are for unions, my guess is that you are in one, or a family member has benefited from one, you do not work with them.

I'm trying to gage what the landscape would be like without them in terms of pay and benefits, coming out the military to civilian life I'm not as familiar with unions and all that they stand for, but the ppl I know in unions thank them for the higher incomes and good benefits...so I was wondering if there wasn't unions would all the manufacturing jobs pay only minium wage?

phinfan3411
09-14-2008, 09:30 PM
Your talking to a guy from NY, probably the union capital of the country, come to our state, and see how great the taxes are, and how many jobs there are....sorry.

Imo, a broader manufacturing base, and possibly more jobs to choose from would drive up starting salaries. Def. more than minimum, but I am sure not at union level.

Like I said, if you are in one, its great, but it creates a false market place, where a union member that pushes a broom is worth 50k a year, which is great until you have to compete in the open market place, and I think there are plenty examples of what happens then, business goes where it is easiest to make a profit.

MDFINFAN
09-14-2008, 10:03 PM
Your talking to a guy from NY, probably the union capital of the country, come to our state, and see how great the taxes are, and how many jobs there are....sorry.

Imo, a broader manufacturing base, and possibly more jobs to choose from would drive up starting salaries. Def. more than minimum, but I am sure not at union level.

Like I said, if you are in one, its great, but it creates a false market place, where a union member that pushes a broom is worth 50k a year, which is great until you have to compete in the open market place, and I think there are plenty examples of what happens then, business goes where it is easiest to make a profit.

So from what I gather, u'r saying that union pushes salaries out of the market and thus cuts the number of jobs..and those who are in a union, i.e., your broom pusher gets a high salary.. but there could definitely be more jobs if the unions weren't there, but the salaries, you're not certain.. I guess I was interested because I've often read your rants against unions, then I know ppl who are in unions and of course but of you don't agree... I guess I go back to why we had unions in the first place and I remember the history from college studies, but had never form a viewpoint on it one way or the other.. We have a union where I work, but I'm not sure what they do..I know they negoiate salaries for workers and benefits, but since everyone gets the same benefits, workers and managers I wasn't sure who was winning that battle.. My company does pay good salaries and I don't have to pay for healthcare other than a co pay at the doctors..We also have tuition reimbursement and we get 75 dollars a month for parking or catching the metro train (subway).. we get a % increase in salary every year and we get profit sharing.. I don't know if the union negotiated all that or not, but I know ppl at my company never seem to leave unless they get a substantial pay raise from another company.. I guess I'm wondering if there wasn't a union at my company would the pay and benefits be the same..we also get a pension plan and a 401K plan..the pension plan is generally not use at companies anymore, just the 401K.. I don't know if the union can influence that or not.. It's a interest concept and organization...I guess it depends on what side of the fense you're on.. I don't have to deal with it one way or the other...so I don't really know the impact.

ohall
09-15-2008, 01:20 AM
I'm not for or against unions, but if unions didn't exist what do you think the avg pay and benefit package of workers would look like? I'm just curious on your thought on this.

Why are you replying to a post that is 5-years old?

The_Dark_Knight
09-15-2008, 01:43 PM
Why are you replying to a post that is 5-years old?
I was curious about that myself. :unsure:

phinfan3411
09-15-2008, 05:55 PM
Yeah, and why am I replying to a reply that is five years old?

MDFINFAN
09-15-2008, 06:20 PM
Yeah, and why am I replying to a reply that is five years old?

I don't know how that got in there, but i thought it was your post from earlier in this thread and I was responding to it... strange...

ohall
09-15-2008, 06:52 PM
That's some funny stuff guys. Glad to see you weren't trolling for 5-year old posts like some do from time to time.

Mr772
09-15-2008, 10:25 PM
Why are you replying to a post that is 5-years old?

This is a perfect time to reflect on the questionable ethics of the Cheney/Haliburton relationship tied to this failed administration.