Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 35 of 35
  1. #21  
    Hey, a fat pig has to eat...oink..
  2. #22  
    WOW!!! my wife baked me a chocolate cake and it tastes great!!

    ....plz drive on through....
  3. #23  
    I always hate hypocrisy, most notably Gov. Arnold's. I seriously doubt that Al Franken personally has a staff of 132 people, Maybe 4 or 5. Air America may have a staff that size.

    Noam Chomskys entire academic career has not been susidized by the military. He had grants from the U.S. Army, the Air Force and the Office of Naval Research for His first book. He has written over 30 books and he is Professor of Linguistics at MIT Linguistics. Maybe MIT is owned by the Military? Even Peter Schweizer doesn't say that.

    As far as taxes go I dont critcize anyone who takes advantage of every legal opportunity. This does not mean though that the new system is fair and not subject to critique.

    It is sad that we are not debating the merits of ideas but whether someone has a large water bill. Maybe Barbara filled her pool, did Peter Schweizer ever bother to find out. These so called liberals don't speak for me. I just like to see well thought out journalism. It is too easy to take an inflammatory idea and run with it. It is kind of like Dan Rather. He made a mistake in using a source for his report on Bush. What is funny is that no one talked about the remainder of his story where the legislator said he did a special favor in getting Bush in the National Guard.

    Jonathan Alter wrote a great article on the state of the media and if Watergate had happened today.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8101512/site/newsweek/
  4. #24  
    Quote Originally Posted by Mixingboard
    It is kind of like Dan Rather. He made a mistake in using a source for his report on Bush. What is funny is that no one talked about the remainder of his story where the legislator said he did a special favor in getting Bush in the National Guard.
    There've been rumblings that the fake document was a plant by a Republican operative. Great strategy if that's what happened (from a Machiavellian point of view--it's definitely despicable).
    On the issue of hypocrisy, I don't think it's too much to ask that people are consistent in their actions if they ask us to change our philosphy. A "do as I say, not as I do" approach cannot work. If someone doesn't tell me how to live my life, you're right, I have no right to question how they live their's (within boundaries of common decency: no rape, murder, etc.). However, when they start telling me that my approach to life is flawed, they better practice what they preach or they stand no chance of converting me.
    Let's think back on the most influential people in history. For brevity's sake, think about the most important, Jesus. At least in the record as preserved now, he wasn't pulling anything over on anyone.
  5. naivete's Avatar
    Posts
    636 Posts
    Global Posts
    640 Global Posts
    #25  
    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    I must have missed the Rumsfeld movie about how evil Gilead Sciences is.

    The hypocrisy is the point, not simply that Moore owns stock.

    I think I do agree though with daThomas (gasp!), that claims of hypocrisy are used by both sides to shut people up rather than to prove any particular point, though. For example - assuming Moore wasn't a nut - would his ownership of Haliburton stock render null and void any criticism he made of the company? It wouldn't make what he said any more or less true, but it would make him less credible as a messenger.
    And I must have missed the Paul Hackett movie about how evil the marine corp is.

    I was being careful when I post that Gilead bit, and yet, you made the conclusion that I think Gilead is evil. Why is that? It's the same reason why I drew the conclusion that democrats are liars after reading the list, even though there are prominent republicans doing the same kind of thing, but somehow escape burnout's radar screen.

    I don't think I missed the point. The hypocrisy, the promotion, the scare....IT'S THE SAME THING. It's just the approach used by the policitician/activist to garner support for his/her personal agenda, be it hidden or not.
  6. naivete's Avatar
    Posts
    636 Posts
    Global Posts
    640 Global Posts
    #26  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    If a junkie tells you it's stupid to start using heroin you're not going to believe him?
    I don't know if that's a good argument. If the same junkie tells you it's cool to start using heroin, are you going to believe him then?
  7. naivete's Avatar
    Posts
    636 Posts
    Global Posts
    640 Global Posts
    #27  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    I heard on an MSNBC talk show yesterday that gov contracts like Halliburton are limited to something like 3.71% profit in their bids for the contract. It turns out that Micheal Moore has earned $30,000,000 MORE off of the Iraq War than Halliburton has. I guess that should be upped with his profits from Halliburton as well then.
    But this would not apply to a no-bid contracts, which in the case of Halliburton, it is.
  8. #28  
    Quote Originally Posted by naivete
    And I must have missed the Paul Hackett movie about how evil the marine corp is.
    'Fraid you lost me there...
    I was being careful when I post that Gilead bit, and yet, you made the conclusion that I think Gilead is evil. Why is that? It's the same reason why I drew the conclusion that democrats are liars after reading the list, even though there are prominent republicans doing the same kind of thing, but somehow escape burnout's radar screen.
    No, actually I was referring to Moore's movie where he drones on about how evil Haliburton is. It turns out that he is profiting from that supposed "evil". That is hypocrisy. You mentioned Rumsfeld and Gilead. It certainly appeared you were equating Rumsfeld with Moore.
    I don't think I missed the point. The hypocrisy, the promotion, the scare....IT'S THE SAME THING. It's just the approach used by the policitician/activist to garner support for his/her personal agenda, be it hidden or not.
    Lost me again...

    Moore reviles Haliburton in public. Privately he profits from it. That's hypocritical. It's really not any more complicated than that.

    If Donald Rumsfeld publicly denounced Gilead while privately profiting from it, that would also be hypocritical.

    Hypocritical comments are not de facto false, but the messenger is damaged by his hypocrisy. That's all I've said.
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  9. naivete's Avatar
    Posts
    636 Posts
    Global Posts
    640 Global Posts
    #29  
    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    'Fraid you lost me there... No, actually I was referring to Moore's movie where he drones on about how evil Haliburton is. It turns out that he is profiting from that supposed "evil". That is hypocrisy. You mentioned Rumsfeld and Gilead. It certainly appeared you were equating Rumsfeld with Moore.Lost me again...

    Moore reviles Haliburton in public. Privately he profits from it. That's hypocritical. It's really not any more complicated than that.

    If Donald Rumsfeld publicly denounced Gilead while privately profiting from it, that would also be hypocritical.

    Hypocritical comments are not de facto false, but the messenger is damaged by his hypocrisy. That's all I've said.
    Are you thinking that I'm disagreeing with you on the hypocrisy? NO! Look. I don't like Michael Moore any more than I like Ann Coulter. All I was questioning was the inclusion of just democrats on the list of hypocrites.
  10. #30  
    Quote Originally Posted by naivete
    Are you thinking that I'm disagreeing with you on the hypocrisy? NO! Look. I don't like Michael Moore any more than I like Ann Coulter. All I was questioning was the inclusion of just democrats on the list of hypocrites.
    I will certainly agree both sides are equally capable of hypocrisy.
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  11. #31  
    Quote Originally Posted by naivete
    But this would not apply to a no-bid contracts, which in the case of Halliburton, it is.
    I don't know much about gov contracts at all, but, true or not, the guy being interviewed claimed that the Halliburton contract was within that 3.71% range. I wonder where and if we could find out for sure.
  12. naivete's Avatar
    Posts
    636 Posts
    Global Posts
    640 Global Posts
    #32  
    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    I will certainly agree both sides are equally capable of hypocrisy.
    After rereading your previous posts, I realized that we are in agreement more often than I initially thought. Peace.
    Last edited by naivete; 11/09/2005 at 10:46 AM.
  13. naivete's Avatar
    Posts
    636 Posts
    Global Posts
    640 Global Posts
    #33  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    I don't know much about gov contracts at all, but, true or not, the guy being interviewed claimed that the Halliburton contract was within that 3.71% range. I wonder where and if we could find out for sure.
    Generally, there are two basic methods of contracting used throughout the government. Sealed bidding is a method of contracting that employs competitive bids, public opening of bids, and awards. Negotiation, meanwhile, is more controversial. Some say that there's loopholes in its provisions that would allow for a contract giveaway. Others say that it is more efficient in certain situations and if done right, can be more effective than sealed bidding. If you want the details, go here

    As for the interview you mentioned, what talk show did you see/hear it from?
    Last edited by naivete; 11/09/2005 at 12:04 PM.
  14. #34  
    The worst part about government contracts is anything that is "cost plus" which means that the company spends whatever is needed to get the job done and then earns a profit on that. So the more they spend, the more they make. Sounds great if you are the one doing the billing, but as one of those billed for these services, it really angers me.
  15. naivete's Avatar
    Posts
    636 Posts
    Global Posts
    640 Global Posts
    #35  
    Quote Originally Posted by KRamsauer
    The worst part about government contracts is anything that is "cost plus" which means that the company spends whatever is needed to get the job done and then earns a profit on that. So the more they spend, the more they make. Sounds great if you are the one doing the billing, but as one of those billed for these services, it really angers me.
    It angers me, too. We get to foot the bill, but we don't have voting power in the review process.
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions