They don't put stents in hearts, they put them in arteries. All this
proves is that he has arteries.
On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 11:23 AM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/08/06/george-w-bush-undergoes-surgery-for-blocked-artery/?hpi
LOL
-Original Message-
From: GMoney [mailto:gm0n3...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2013 2:42 PM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: George W. Bush undergoes heart surgery for blocked artery
Heh, from Fark:
Blockage -- possibly Dick Cheney -- found in George W. Bush's heart
O
> -Original Message-
> From: Larry C. Lyons [mailto:larrycly...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2013 1:23 PM
> To: cf-community
> Subject: George W. Bush undergoes heart surgery for blocked artery
>
>
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp
I think they are just passing around the one Cheney used to fake having a
heart with...
-Original Message-
From: Larry C. Lyons [mailto:larrycly...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2013 1:23 PM
To: cf-community
Subject: George W. Bush undergoes heart surgery for blocked artery
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/08/06/george-w-bush-undergoes-surgery-for-blocked-artery/?hpid=z3
So Bush has a heart. Who'd have guessed.
~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 5:35 PM, Michael Dinowitz wrote:
> I'm not saying he doesn't suck, I'm saying that there are fewer sources of
> news than you think. It has nothing to do with advertisers or people being
> reached. It has to do with sources. And again, in America it only looks like
> there a
sulzberger has an agenda, his paper reflects it
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 9:57 PM, Loathe wrote:
> Anyone see where the Times outed an interrogator it admits didn't harm
> anyone, or do anything wrong.
>
~|
Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 s
Anyone see where the Times outed an interrogator it admits didn't harm
anyone, or do anything wrong.
sam morris wrote:
> Look into my eye's
>
>
> you are getting sleepy
>
>
>
> I think you mean 80% think the country sucks thanks to AP and BS articles
> like this.
>
> http://www.usn
> cHat wrote:
> An advertiser doesn't give a wit about sources, they care about
> eyeballs
I get the point, I just don't agree with it.
Ask tBone or The Sarge where they get their Iraq news - it ain't from the AP!
~|
Adobe® Col
Here is an interesting take from Tufts Magazine on the state and future of
journalism:
http://www.tufts.edu/alumni/magazine/spring2008/features/press1.html
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 4:58 PM, sam wrote:
> I think you mean 80% think the country sucks thanks to AP and BS articles
> like this.
>
>
>
> Tell that to an advertiser. There are 1000s. And no, I'm not judging
> media by "influence" I'm judging them the way advertisers do: number
> of people reached.
An advertiser doesn't give a wit about sources, they care about
eyeballs; yes, there are thousands of distribution points but if you
Look into my eye's
you are getting sleepy
I think you mean 80% think the country sucks thanks to AP and BS articles like
this.
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/2008/6/23/media-to-america-disaster-seen-as-catastrophe-looms.html#
[http://tinyurl.com/6rmhu6]
>> Dino wro
I'm not saying he doesn't suck, I'm saying that there are fewer sources of
news than you think. It has nothing to do with advertisers or people being
reached. It has to do with sources. And again, in America it only looks like
there are thousands of media sources. Maybe on the very local level but
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 7:28 PM, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The argument present by Cam, from what I can tell, is that Bush really
> doesn't suck; it's just that 80% of Americans think he does because
> they're hyp-no-tized by "the mainstream media".
>
> I'm pointing out that that's fa
> Dino wrote:
> If you dig down you'll find that there really aren't that many media
> sources.
Tell that to an advertiser. There are 1000s. And no, I'm not judging
media by "influence" I'm judging them the way advertisers do: number
of people reached.
The argument present by Cam, from what I c
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 12:41 PM, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (3.) Influence of media bias on opinions.
> Best way to see this is talk to any Rush listener. Despite the fact
> that he's not a news source, millions of Americans form their opinions
> based on what he says. Therefore bia
What a truly Amero-centric way of looking at it. Who is the media in
England? There is really only one. Who is the media in France? There is
really only one. Who is the media around the world? Well, the one from
England and France seem to be everywhere.
If you dig down you'll find that there really
> cHat wrote:
> Last I knew every major city in the US carries the networks listed
> above.
There's 3 issues here:
(1.) Defining the "mainstream media"
20 years ago it was probably defined as you say and the term meant
those sources that the majority of people got their news and
information. My
>> ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, AP & Reuters are who I call the "Mainstream Media"
>> in TV, print and spoken forms.
>
> Ok, and on a 24-hour week day basis what is the consumership of those
> news sources vs all other media?
Last I knew every major city in the US carries the networks listed
above. Additi
> gg wrote:
>> RoMunn wrote:
>> How can you be so wrong time and time again? History takes a broader view.
> Oh, and there's always positive history from even from failures:
Actually we could probably do a rough SWAG of an unbiased analysis:
(1.) Hopefully we'll agree that Bush will be remembered
> RoMunn wrote:
> How can you be so wrong time and time again? History takes a broader view.
>
Ah, so Napoleon's failed democratic imperialism is now viewed as
successful and he's a hero? That's not what I learned ... But don't
worry - with of all the biased history sources there'll always be so
> cHat wrote:
> ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, AP & Reuters are who I call the "Mainstream Media"
> in TV, print and spoken forms.
>
Ok, and on a 24-hour week day basis what is the consumership of those
news sources vs all other media?
> The "S-CHIP" Bill -
> Bush had to veto it, not because of the fact tha
Maureen's corollary to Godwin's Law: Any political discussion will
eventually be derailed by discussion of Clinton and sex
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 8:15 PM, Michael Dinowitz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Clinton: Define sex
~|
Ado
The media can be seen as the major news clearing houses - AP, Reuters, AFP,
and BBC. These are centers of news that may gain their news from a number of
'lower' sources but that news is approved, edited and distributed from a
central location. If there is bias at the center then the bias is carried
How can you be so wrong time and time again? History takes a broader view.
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 7:57 PM, Gruss G wrote:
> > RoMunn wrote:
> > The Left will never
> > acknowledge reality when it comes to this Administration's
> accomplishments
>
> What are they again?
>
> But never matter, beca
Do _you_ know what syndication is?
Do you know where the AP get their stories?
Read a little about it...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associated_Press
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 11:43 PM, C. Hatton Humphrey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Take a look at the by-line on those articles or listen to th
> I know you have this huge chip against the "the media", but facts are
> that there is so much channel segmentation in the media right now that
> making any type of claim of bias *as assoicated with market numbers*
> is ridiculous.
Take a look at the by-line on those articles or listen to the sou
> Give 3 examples and show "the media" bias. Oh, and define "media" in
> terms of sources and number of audience reached.
ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, AP & Reuters are who I call the "Mainstream Media"
in TV, print and spoken forms.
The "S-CHIP" Bill -
Bush had to veto it, not because of the fact that it
> Dino wrote:
> Clinton: Define sex
>
I know you have this huge chip against the "the media", but facts are
that there is so much channel segmentation in the media right now that
making any type of claim of bias *as assoicated with market numbers*
is ridiculous.
Ask anyone looking to advertise in
Boy, that was a non sequitor.
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 11:15 PM, Michael Dinowitz <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Clinton: Define sex
>
> On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 11:04 PM, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > cHat wrote:
> > > Regardless of the
> > > action that he took, he's going to look
Clinton: Define sex
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 11:04 PM, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > cHat wrote:
> > Regardless of the
> > action that he took, he's going to look like "the bad guy." The
> > biased side of the media comes in to play at that point, not telling
> > people the projected
> cHat wrote:
> Regardless of the
> action that he took, he's going to look like "the bad guy." The
> biased side of the media comes in to play at that point, not telling
> people the projected outcome if he had taken an opposite stance.
>
Give 3 examples and show "the media" bias. Oh, and defin
> Judging by the level of vitriol coming from the left-wing kooks in the
> article's comments, I think the author hit a nerve. The Left will never
> acknowledge reality when it comes to this Administration's accomplishments -
> that would destroy everything they believe about the world.
True, but
> RoMunn wrote:
> The Left will never
> acknowledge reality when it comes to this Administration's accomplishments
What are they again?
But never matter, because this administration will be judged just like
everyone other one: were things better when the President left office
from when he came in
>Judging by the level of vitriol coming from the left-wing kooks in the
>article's comments, I think the author hit a nerve. The Left will never
>acknowledge reality when it comes to this Administration's accomplishments -
>that would destroy everything they believe about the world.
Well given the
it's an editorial piece. Published because it is a well-expressed opinion.
There is value in discussing such pieces even if you do not agree with them.
Don't know why that is hard to understand.
Maybe it is because it is a thought that is not phrased in terms of anyone
hating anybody??
On Sun, J
Judging by the level of vitriol coming from the left-wing kooks in the
article's comments, I think the author hit a nerve. The Left will never
acknowledge reality when it comes to this Administration's accomplishments -
that would destroy everything they believe about the world.
On Sun, Jun 22, 2
Wow and I thought the Telegraph hated Bush.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/06/22/do2201.xml
~|
Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to
date
Get the Free Tria
> Maureen wrote:
> Moot point, red herring and standard disinformation technique.
Yup. This is a question of federal policy not individual action.
Otherwise we could ask Mr. Bush if he was willing to put himself into
massive debt to fund the bridge to nowhere (although it would rank
among his be
Moot point, red herring and standard disinformation technique. When you
can't dispute the message, attack the messenger.
If Michael Moore gave every single penny of his money to Katrina survivors,
Bush and his band of incompetents would still be in power, put there by the
very people Moore desc
You know... regardless of his politics, he has a point.
Dana
On 9/12/05, Robert Munn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > 1. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox,
> >or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
>
> This is why I called Moore a Leftist (a ph
were born"
>
> the Scottish Rogues
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Larry C. Lyons [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 01:44 pm
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Fw: A Letter to All Who Voted for George W. Bush from Micha
> Robert wrote:
> This is why I called Moore a Leftist (a phony Leftist, anyway) and not a
> liberal.
>
In general, a liberal is somebody who believes that a federal gov't is
best way to solve social problems via broad powers and tax dollars.
They believe in the effectiveness of "super-organiza
However considering George Soros, its possible to do well by doing good.
larry
On 9/12/05, S. Isaac Dealey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Sir Ike wrote:
> >> So you're saying it's impossible to become wealthy
> >> without being a greedy, insensitive capitalist who
> >> daily walks all over the b
>> Sir Ike wrote:
>> So you're saying it's impossible to become wealthy
>> without being a greedy, insensitive capitalist who
>> daily walks all over the backs of hard-working
>> lower-class people?
> In many ways, yes. Capitalism is about competition
> and so every winner is stepping on someone.
> 1. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox,
>or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
This is why I called Moore a Leftist (a phony Leftist, anyway) and not a
liberal.
~|
Find o
i know, that's what I just said, and apologized for.
> by using the term liberal and equating it with something entirely
> different you are using the same tactics as many right wing nut jobs.
> Liberal != socalist.
>
> larry
>
~
G wrote:
> Aren't people on the far left, the true "liberals", people who generally
> cast a suspicious eye on capitalism
Something like that is indeed how the term has been redefined over the
past few decades.
But for most of its life that term has been use more for an emphasis on
decentr
by using the term liberal and equating it with something entirely
different you are using the same tactics as many right wing nut jobs.
Liberal != socalist.
larry
On 9/12/05, G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ok, i'll play the semantic game.
>
> - I shouldn't have said "liberal" when i meant "socia
Ok, i'll play the semantic game.
- I shouldn't have said "liberal" when i meant "socialist". Because even
though most socialists are liberals, not all liberals are socialists.
- Consversely, i'll try not to say "conservative" when i mean "right wing
religious nut job". Because even though most r
2, 2005 01:44 pm
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Fw: A Letter to All Who Voted for George W. Bush from Michael Moore
Importance: Low
I see you enjoy stereotyping people. What a bald assed over generalization.
On 9/12/05, G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That is what liberals believe.
>
&
No, just dislike the bias that being shown.
As for true liberals, this link may explain it:
http://www.liberal.ca/history_e.aspx
Liberal, as from dictionary.com - note that none of these definitions
agree with your right wing bias.
4 entries found for liberal.
lib·er·al Audio pronunciation of
Geeesh...i hit a nerve?
Aren't people on the far left, the true "liberals", people who generally
cast a suspicious eye on capitalism
>I see you enjoy stereotyping people. What a bald assed over generalization.
>
> On 9/12/05, G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> That is what liberals believe.
>>
I see you enjoy stereotyping people. What a bald assed over generalization.
On 9/12/05, G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That is what liberals believe.
>
>
> > So you're saying it's impossible to become wealthy without being a
> > greedy, insensitive capitalist who daily walks all over the backs o
That is what liberals believe.
> So you're saying it's impossible to become wealthy without being a
> greedy, insensitive capitalist who daily walks all over the backs of
> hard-working lower-class people? I'm not saying he's not a greedy
> capitalist, just that it seems like a non-sequitur to me
> Sir Ike wrote:
> So you're saying it's impossible to become wealthy without being a
> greedy, insensitive capitalist who daily walks all over the backs of
> hard-working lower-class people?
In many ways, yes. Capitalism is about competition and so every
winner is stepping on someone. The more
+1000
-Original Message-
From: Robert Munn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2005 7:42 PM
As I have said before, Michael Moore is a capitalist entertainer posing
as a Leftist, and this letter does nothing to change my opinion of him.
Michael Moore is a capitalis
So you're saying it's impossible to become wealthy without being a
greedy, insensitive capitalist who daily walks all over the backs of
hard-working lower-class people? I'm not saying he's not a greedy
capitalist, just that it seems like a non-sequitur to me...
> I'm not suggesting he give away a
I'm not suggesting he give away all of his money, just most of it. Let him keep
ten or twenty million himself, that's only a fraction of his wealth, but still
more than most people see in a lifetime. :-)
I am exaggerating the point to highlight the hypocrisy of his position. He is a
self-made m
> -Original Message-
> From: Robert Munn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2005 10:42 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Fw: A Letter to All Who Voted for George W. Bush from Michael
> Moore
>
> As I have said before, Michael Moore is
arity- heck you probably have a charity of
your own. After all, a rich guy like you needs plenty of tax breaks.
> To All My Fellow Americans Who Voted for George W. Bush:
>
> On this, the fourth anniversary of 9/11, I'm just curious, how does it
> feel?
>
> How does it fe
To All My Fellow Americans Who Voted for George W. Bush:
On this, the fourth anniversary of 9/11, I'm just curious, how does it feel?
How does it feel to know that the man you elected to lead us after we were
attacked went ahead and put a guy in charge of FEMA whose main qualification
LOL
> ...at World Stupidity Awards.
> http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/artslife/stor
> y.html?id=d779a64c-1f81-46b0-8b75-b77df40ac1a7
[Todays Threads]
[This Message]
[Subscription]
[Fast Unsubscribe]
[User Settings]
[Donations and Support]
...at World Stupidity Awards.
http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/artslife/story.html?id=d779a64c-1f81-46b0-8b75-b77df40ac1a7
[Todays Threads]
[This Message]
[Subscription]
[Fast Unsubscribe]
[User Settings]
[Donations and Support]
;
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2004 23:07:16 -0400
Subject: Re: George W. Bush, a great president
To: CF-Community <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Yes. If you want to see the information on the whole bidding process, go
to http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/06.htm
The Halliburt
Yes. If you want to see the information on the whole bidding process, go
to http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/06.htm
The Halliburton contracts were awarded under section 6.302 -- Circumstances
Permitting Other Than Full and Open Competition, although it the
cir
yeah but doesnt putting the contract through a formal identifiable bid
process bring the whole thing out into the open, including the
criteria for being a qualified bidder?
Dana
On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 16:33:34 -0400, Maureen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The purpose of competitive bidding is to fo
um, no it would not be a waste of time. The secrecy surrounding it is
a very big red flag. If in fact there is nothing wrong there, why hide
it?
Dana
On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 13:32:13 -0400, Won Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> At 13:24 7/1/2004 -0400, you wrote:
> > > Now, to misuse that relation
well ya, and if the dealings were transparent and open to examination
hey, perhaps some respected journalist could have a look and decide it
really is on the up and up. As it is, there is not enough information.
You can say that there is not enough information therefore there is no
evidence, or you
especially when they refuse to disclose that relationship :) See the
recent Supreme Court decision on the energy commission.
On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 12:52:53 -0400, Won Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Exactly, at that level some high ranking political figure will have a
> relationship from some s
At 12:37 PM 7/1/04, Tony wrote:
>well who is to say that any other competitive contractor wouldn't have
>had ties to someone in the administration, god forbid a democrat tie?
Cheney is not 'someone in the administration', he is the Vice President,
and in many instances the de facto president. H
The purpose of competitive bidding is to force the companies to give their
best price, not to determine qualification. The companies would have to be
qualified before being allowed to bid. By not requiring the bidding,
Halliburton was allowed to charge whatever they wanted to charge, which we
At 13:24 7/1/2004 -0400, you wrote:
> > Now, to misuse that relationship is the cause for concern.
>
>This is exactly what we are talking about! Hello!!!
Yes I agree with you. There is enough coincidences and oddities that the
Halliburton - Cheney relationship should be investigated. My point
At 13:17 7/1/2004 -0400, you wrote:
>Yes there was too much possibility of corrpution the way it was set
>up. If the contracts had been put out to bid and the KBR-H offer may
>have been a low bidder, the fact that it was a no-bid contract does
>raise a lot of suspicions. I think in this case Cheney
> Now, to misuse that relationship is the cause for concern.
This is exactly what we are talking about! Hello!!!
[Todays Threads]
[This Message]
[Subscription]
[Fast Unsubscribe]
[User Settings]
[Donations and Support]
Yes there was too much possibility of corrpution the way it was set
up. If the contracts had been put out to bid and the KBR-H offer may
have been a low bidder, the fact that it was a no-bid contract does
raise a lot of suspicions. I think in this case Cheney should have
been like Caesar's wife in
, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2004 12:55 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: George W. Bush, a great president
> well who is to say that any other competitive contractor
> wouldn't have had ties to someone in the administration, god
> forbid a democrat tie?
Exactly, at that level some high ranking political figure will have a
relationship from some super-mega corp executive. I just don't think it's
fair to think someone is guilty just because they have a
relationship. Now, to misuse that relationship is the cause for concern.
[Todays Threads]
> well who is to say that any other competitive contractor
> wouldn't have had ties to someone in the administration, god
> forbid a democrat tie?
C'mon Tony, if it would have happened to someone else we'd be having the
same conversation.
[Todays Threads]
[This Message]
[Subscription]
[Fa
if there were a competitive bidding process the whole thing would
stink a lot less.
Dana
- Original Message -
From: Tony Weeg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 12:37:57 -0400
Subject: RE: George W. Bush, a great president
To: CF-Community <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
well w
ok. I do think the pay package looks very bad though and given the
track record of this administration... if it looks bad it is probably
really worse.
Dana
- Original Message -
From: Won Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2004 12:38:48 -0400
Subject: RE: George W. Bush, a
that wasn't necessarily to you...
Just a general question regarding Halliburton
-Original Message-
From: dana tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2004 12:35 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: George W. Bush, a great president
I'm not sure I unde
g url emails to your friends!
-- dont mistake my perfection as arrogance
anonymous
-Original Message-
From: Won Lee [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2004 12:39 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: George W. Bush, a great president
At 12:22 7/1/2004 -0400, you wrote:
&g
+1
- Original Message -
From: Jerry Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2004 12:30:47 -0400
Subject: Re: George W. Bush, a great president
To: CF-Community <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
That would be smart move unless you KNEW that the stock was going to
go up because you
At 12:22 7/1/2004 -0400, you wrote:
>So the problem with the company is how he obtained the contract/business?
>
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: dana tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2004 12:22 PM
>To: CF-Community
>Subject: Re: George
ginal Message -
From: Monique Boea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 12:22:59 -0400
Subject: RE: George W. Bush, a great president
To: CF-Community <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
So the problem with the company is how he obtained the contract/business?
-Original Message-
F
That would be smart move unless you KNEW that the stock was going to go up because you, personally, could guarantee unlimited no-bid contracts to ensure corporate health.
I'd love to see what his actual standings are, and wether or not he really donated all of it to charity as he claims.
Jerry Jo
So the problem with the company is how he obtained the contract/business?
-Original Message-
From: dana tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2004 12:22 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: George W. Bush, a great president
so why not put it up for bid and formalize
so why not put it up for bid and formalize that? It's unnecessary bad PR.
Dana
- Original Message -
From: Won Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2004 12:05:58 -0400
Subject: RE: George W. Bush, a great president
To: CF-Community <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
At 10:10 7/
erm, sorry, I missed something there. If he has stock options and the
stock goes up he does not make any money because why again?
Dana
- Original Message -
From: Won Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2004 12:17:23 -0400
Subject: Re: George W. Bush, a great president
At 10:02 7/1/2004 -0600, you wrote:
>Um, halliburton makes money, the stock goes up, no? And yes, it is
>deferred compensation, but it is being paid in stock, correct?
Deferred compensation is to be paid in cash. But that doesn't mean that
the deal can't be restructed at a latter date.
And he ha
At 10:10 7/1/2004 -0400, you wrote:
>My only comment on that (besides that I do agree with Larry - there simply
>aren't that many firms that could do the work) is to say: why bother, then
>with making no-bid contracts? Why change the process?
The only other American companies that could handle th
thank you, Maureen. What she said. :)
- Original Message -
From: Maureen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2004 09:15:46 -0400
Subject: Re: George W. Bush, a great president
To: CF-Community <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
At 08:38 AM 7/1/04, Won wrote:
>This does constit
Um, halliburton makes money, the stock goes up, no? And yes, it is
deferred compensation, but it is being paid in stock, correct?
Dana
>This does constitute a financial relationship, but I fail to see how Cheney
really benefits if HAL makes more money
[Todays Threads]
[This Message]
[Subscr
de it well.
The leaders of this administration just aren't very good politicians.
Jim Davis
From: Larry C. Lyons [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2004 9:04 AM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: George W. Bush, a great president
Lets not forget that there is one big wrinkle i
At 08:38 AM 7/1/04, Won wrote:
>This does constitute a financial relationship, but I fail to see how Cheney
>really benefits if HAL makes more money.
Cheney owns stock in HAL. It's in a blind trust, which means he doesn't
vote on it, or control buying or selling. However, as HAL makes money, t
to your friends!
>
> -- dont mistake my perfection as arrogance
> anonymous
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Won Lee [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2004 8:39 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: George W. Bush, a great president
>
> At 15:29 6/30/
Well, it has come to light that intelligence in that part of the word seems
to have been something a bit less than "good".
A quick air strike along with some good itelligence
[Todays Threads]
[This Message]
[Subscription]
[Fast Unsubscribe]
[User Settings]
[Donations and Support]
Tony Weeg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2004 8:43 AM
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: George W. Bush, a great president
won.
to me that's the point of a conspiracy theory. they are usually
bumbling events of a somewhat related order that if pieced together,
with a bit of hop
EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2004 8:39 AM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: George W. Bush, a great president
At 15:29 6/30/2004 -0600, you wrote:
>you forgot to mention that the terms of Cheney's retirement mean that
>he is still getting payments from Halliburton as we speak. It simp
1 - 100 of 357 matches
Mail list logo
