[quote][b]WASHINGTON

if the VP didn't work for halliburton, then i would be inclined to agree with you...but this is clearly favoritism

smartass2003 Wrote:if the VP didn't work for halliburton, then i would be inclined to agree with you...but this is clearly favoritism

So what? this type of thing goes on all of the time, not just in politics. Everyone in that situation would do the same thing. There would be no point to giving contracts to other companies when the VP works at Halliburton. If they do good work, it shouldn't matter if the VP is reaping some of the rewards.

Shouldn't there be perks to being VP?

flyingswoosh Wrote:

smartass2003 Wrote:if the VP didn't work for halliburton, then i would be inclined to agree with you...but this is clearly favoritism

So what? this type of thing goes on all of the time, not just in politics. Everyone in that situation would do the same thing. There would be no point to giving contracts to other companies when the VP works at Halliburton. If they do good work, it shouldn't matter if the VP is reaping some of the rewards.

Shouldn't there be perks to being VP?

I disagree. There's several issues here.


1) The appearance of favoritism in itself is bad because it breeds distrust.

2) no, there should be no perks to being vice president or holding any political office. haven't you read any of plato's works(the republic, etc)? plato writes that the ruling class shouldn't have any access to money, and that their salaries and basic living expenses should be paid for by the people...furthermore they aren't even allowed to own land.

i agree with the basic premise that people in govt should base their decisions SOLELY on what is good for the country. and there shouldn't be any doubt about where their loyalties lie when they make decisions.

Damn Cheney for being successful. Halliburton is one of the best at what they do. I know for a FACT that Brown and Root has been doing this continually for years(They are STILL in Bosnia, you know, since Clinton was in office), don't know anything about Bechtel and frankly, do not care.

NEW REQUIREMENT FOR PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE:

You must have lived in government housing for your entire adult life.


{Well, Clinton fulfilled that requirement.)

let me add that politics is very different from other occupations. in politics you don't work for yourself...you work for the good of your country. the standards are much higher(or at least should be) when you are a politician.

as a private citizen there are a lot of things you can do and nobody will care(party, get drunk, etc)

as a politician, you have a big responsibility, and if you decide to work in politics you have to accept that the standards are much higher for you.

so no, of course the VP should not be practicing favoritism(i mean, is this that hard to understand??!)

smartass2003 Wrote:I disagree. There's several issues here.


1) The appearance of favoritism in itself is bad because it breeds distrust.

2) no, there should be no perks to being vice president or holding any political office. haven't you read any of plato's works(the republic, etc)? plato writes that the ruling class shouldn't have any access to money, and that their salaries and basic living expenses should be paid for by the people...furthermore they aren't even allowed to own land.

i agree with the basic premise that people in govt should base their decisions SOLELY on what is good for the country. and there shouldn't be any doubt about where their loyalties lie when they make decisions.

You cannot prove ANYWHERE that Cheney is showing favortism. He resigned his position and all "I" see is the best company getting the contract. What point would it make to send our worst to Iraq?

....and I think you're wrong about Plato. If I'm not mistaken, also stated that, while Democracy was the worst form of government(Mob Rule), a Contitutional Monarchy was the best, hence, I take everything written by him with a grain of salt.

Sorry SA, I don't want imbeciles running the asylum. I want successful contributors to society making decisions. While you can cast all the disparages towards Bush you want, Cheney is a VERY successful businessman. ...and I have ALWAYS held the contention that the USA should be ran as a business.

RebelKev Wrote:Damn Cheney for being successful. Halliburton is one of the best at what they do. I know for a FACT that Brown and Root has been doing this continually for years(They are STILL in Bosnia, you know, since Clinton was in office), don't know anything about Bechtel and frankly, do not care.

NEW REQUIREMENT FOR PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE:

You must have lived in government housing for your entire adult life.


{Well, Clinton fulfilled that requirement.)

the fact that clinton helped his friends, has no effect on this discussion.


halliburton being goodis one thing. but as i said, the APPEARANCE of playing favoites does considerable damage to his credibility.

halliburton may be good, but they should have picked another company anyway to avoid this problem.

smartass2003 Wrote:let me add that politics is very different from other occupations. in politics you don't work for yourself...you work for the good of your country.

Hold on, let me address this point first before reading the rest......



...... :lolup: :lolup: :lolup: :lolup: :lolup: :lolup: :lolup: :lolup: :lolup:

Someone might want to tell that to the 9 stooges.

smartass2003 Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:Damn Cheney for being successful. Halliburton is one of the best at what they do. I know for a FACT that Brown and Root has been doing this continually for years(They are STILL in Bosnia, you know, since Clinton was in office), don't know anything about Bechtel and frankly, do not care.

NEW REQUIREMENT FOR PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE:

You must have lived in government housing for your entire adult life.


{Well, Clinton fulfilled that requirement.)

the fact that clinton helped his friends, has no effect on this discussion.


halliburton being goodis one thing. but as i said, the APPEARANCE of playing favoites does considerable damage to his credibility.

halliburton may be good, but they should have picked another company anyway to avoid this problem.

I said Clinton did this:

You must have lived in government housing for your entire adult life.


Nothing more.


As far as "Appearance", is this an indictment? So far, I have seen no proof and while the VP and Prez aren't above the law, they are certainly not below it either.

By the way, it the Prez used to work for Intel, the VP for AMD, should we award the contract to Cyrix for PC chips when AMD and Intel were CLEARLY superior? This is just a rebuilding effort, afterwards, it will be up to the Iraqis.


....and if we were to stick them with Cyrix chips, they'd be at war with us again.

RebelKev Wrote:You cannot prove ANYWHERE that Cheney is showing favortism. He resigned his position and all "I" see is the best company getting the contract. What point would it make to send our worst to Iraq?

....and I think you're wrong about Plato. If I'm not mistaken, also stated that, while Democracy was the worst form of government(Mob Rule), a Contitutional Monarchy was the best, hence, I take everything written by him with a grain of salt.

Sorry SA, I don't want imbeciles running the asylum. I want successful contributors to society making decisions. While you can cast all the disparages towards Bush you want, Cheney is a VERY successful businessman. ...and I have ALWAYS held the contention that the USA should be ran as a business.

i don't need to prove it...the mere appearance of it is bad enough.


plato said that democracy had it's bad points just like any other. but democracy is only bad, when the people in it don't fuffil their roles...that is what he wrote. he picked democracy as the basic form of his ideal govt.

chaney has been very successful..that is true..i can't and don't want to dispute that. but playing favorites, or appearing as if you do, is not the way to conduct yourself as a politician.

there should be no doubt that a politician is always basing his decisions on what is best for the country...and this type of action leaves doubt.

{The PC Chip deal was just a hypothetical analogy}


I understand the wish to remain neutral and not have a conflict of interest, but damn SA. I am pretty sure the VP, being an investor, has money in MANY MANY MANY companies. Hell, I am vested into about 15 myself.

smartass2003 Wrote:there should be no doubt that a politician is always basing his decisions on what is best for the country...and this type of action leaves doubt.

this is my main objection...i think it is very reasonable to desire this from the people who run our govt.

smartass2003 Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:You cannot prove ANYWHERE that Cheney is showing favortism. He resigned his position and all "I" see is the best company getting the contract. What point would it make to send our worst to Iraq?

....and I think you're wrong about Plato. If I'm not mistaken, also stated that, while Democracy was the worst form of government(Mob Rule), a Contitutional Monarchy was the best, hence, I take everything written by him with a grain of salt.

Sorry SA, I don't want imbeciles running the asylum. I want successful contributors to society making decisions. While you can cast all the disparages towards Bush you want, Cheney is a VERY successful businessman. ...and I have ALWAYS held the contention that the USA should be ran as a business.

i don't need to prove it...the mere appearance of it is bad enough.


plato said that democracy had it's bad points just like any other. but democracy is only bad, when the people in it don't fuffil their roles...that is what he wrote. he picked democracy as the basic form of his ideal govt.

chaney has been very successful..that is true..i can't and don't want to dispute that. but playing favorites, or appearing as if you do, is not the way to conduct yourself as a politician.

there should be no doubt that a politician is always basing his decisions on what is best for the country...and this type of action leaves doubt.

You'll have to show me a link to Plato's writings as that's not how I remember it. I am pretty damn sure he said it was the worst form.


Also, we don't punish someone for appearances SA. Do you believe in profiling blacks? It may seem like apples and oranges but it is indeed, apples and apples. He's successful and therefore you think he played favorites to pad his own wallet. SA, that's a very defaming thing to say about someone.

smartass2003 Wrote:

smartass2003 Wrote:there should be no doubt that a politician is always basing his decisions on what is best for the country...and this type of action leaves doubt.

this is my main objection...i think it is very reasonable to desire this from the people who run our govt.

Ok SA, I don't have any doubt.

You can please some people all the time, all the people some of the time, but you can NEVER please all the people all of the time.

RebelKev Wrote:{The PC Chip deal was just a hypothetical analogy}


I understand the wish to remain neutral and not have a conflict of interest, but damn SA. I am pretty sure the VP, being an investor, has money in MANY MANY MANY companies. Hell, I am vested into about 15 myself.

they are supposedly in a blind trust...i wonder how blind it actually is. but he shouldn't leave himself open to these questions. it's called acting professionally.

smartass2003 Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:{The PC Chip deal was just a hypothetical analogy}


I understand the wish to remain neutral and not have a conflict of interest, but damn SA. I am pretty sure the VP, being an investor, has money in MANY MANY MANY companies. Hell, I am vested into about 15 myself.

they are supposedly in a blind trust...i wonder how blind it actually is. but he shouldn't leave himself open to these questions. it's called acting professionally.

That's my entire deal SA, he will be criticized JUST for being Richard Cheney. Like I said, I HAVE no doubt that he did the best thing for the country. You do. We disagree. Fine. That goes without saying. That was the point of my post....that this issue is pointless.

BTW, how many people does Halliburton employ and who is better at putting out oil well fires that the one that put them out in the first Gulf War, .....their subsidiary Red Adair?

RebelKev Wrote:You'll have to show me a link to Plato's writings as that's not how I remember it. I am pretty damn sure he said it was the worst form.

worst form is tyrany. i actually don't have a link...i read it.


Also, we don't punish someone for appearances SA.





Do you believe in profiling blacks? It may seem like apples and oranges but it is indeed, apples and apples. He's successful and therefore you think he played favorites to pad his own wallet. SA, that's a very defaming thing to say about someone.

no, you shouldn't punish them for it. but by the same token, chaney and his supporters(ie you and others) can't object when people question his credibility. it's a reasonable thing to do. for HIS sake, and everyone elses he shouldn't open himself up to this.






i don't know for sure if he did or not. i'm saying you don't have any basis to complain that other people are doing so. because it's a reasonable thing to do when he appoints his former company to a VERY big contract.