http://groups.google.com/group/alt.autos?hl=en
Today's topics:
* Does AntiChrist control Catholics, GOP ? - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.autos/t/0b5752cd3c9b695d?hl=en
* Jobs overseas ? Who can we blame? - 8 messages, 6 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.autos/t/e648aa45d68ff4d3?hl=en
* Cody Sutton & Jeff Moseley, Satanic Killers, GOP ? - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.autos/t/ebcc3fb757bfe10b?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Does AntiChrist control Catholics, GOP ?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.autos/t/0b5752cd3c9b695d?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 30 2010 3:31 pm
From: Desertphile
On Sat, 30 Oct 2010 23:12:08 +0200, <Cicerus@fastwebnet.it> wrote:
> Does AntiChrist control Catholics, GOP ?
Does Chevy now make an Antichrist? Gasoline or diesel?
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Jobs overseas ? Who can we blame?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.autos/t/e648aa45d68ff4d3?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 8 ==
Date: Sun, Oct 31 2010 1:56 pm
From: "Christine O'Donnell"
Can't blame the companies for not wanting to fork over outrageous
union pay to millions of ignorant, unskilled bozos!
What would YOU rather pay some fat, beer-gutted slob with a 7th grade
education to tighten screws on a auto production line? Take your
pick.
UAW -- $36/hour.
Foreign Company -- $8.25/hour.
Now you know why the U.S. jobs are gone overseas -- forever.
It's called global leveling.
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread469565/pg1
== 2 of 8 ==
Date: Sun, Oct 31 2010 3:15 pm
From: Raymond
On Oct 31, 4:56 pm, "Christine O'Donnell" <lilhor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Can't blame the companies for not wanting to fork over outrageous
> union pay to millions of ignorant, unskilled bozos!
>
> What would YOU rather pay some fat, beer-gutted slob with a 7th grade
> education to tighten screws on a auto production line? Take your
> pick.
>
> UAW -- $36/hour.
>
> Foreign Company -- $8.25/hour.
>
> Now you know why the U.S. jobs are gone overseas -- forever.
>
> It's called global leveling.
>
> http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread469565/pg1
Don't unions ultimately drive jobs offshore?
In an economy based on competition, companies are driven to cut costs
and increase profits in pretty much any way they can. This sets in
place a "race to the bottom". If unions settled for wage reductions of
50%, pretty soon this lower wage rate would set an industry standard,
and further cuts would be necessary to maintain competitiveness. The
solution is not to settle for a spiral of decreasing pay and
conditions, but to ensure that rights and wages in developing
countries are raised. For this reason many unions are now working
across national borders, seeking fair pay and labour rights for
workers in the developing world. Last year saw improved legislation in
China, and substantial wage increases in both China and India. With
this, of course, came company threats to relocate. It's going to be a
long, hard struggle.
Unionism 101
Unionism is about workers standing together to improve their
situation, and to help others.
SEE:
http://www.newunionism.net/unionism.htm
At the rate these countries are organizing, they will soon be on a
level that the American workers were on at the height of their power
and the Chinese, especially, will be moving their companies into the
United States to take advantage of the slave labor rates. Some
Americans, seeking work, will have to illegally cross into Mexico to
compete with the Mexican labor force for menial jobs. What goes around
comes around.
Even in these countries, when unions and management fail to reach
agreement, or where relations break down, the union has the option of
pursuing industrial action. This can take the form of a strike, a go-
slow, a work-to-rule, a slow-down, an overtime ban, or even an
occupation. Sometimes other unions will take action in solidarity with
the initial group, and in rare instances this can lead to a general
strike. Different countries have different legislation governing
industrial action, with some trying to suppress it altogether.
These countries also have their forms of national guards, similar to
those in America that were the strike breakers of the earlier years
when the labor movement was in its infancy and the workers can expect
to lose many lives at the hands of these corporation police just as
was the case in America.
Hopefully, the United States will be able to remain a strong military
force that can continue making war around the globe. If successful,
there will be jobs for thousands of young Americans willing to go to
war. This is one soultion for the uneducated school dropouts. Of
course, standards for enlistments will have to be lowered and we will
have to continue borrowing money from nations like China in order to
fight our wars, But at least work will be available for many. After
all, "War is the health of the state" as Randolph Bourne wrote years
ago.
Last year saw improved legislation in China, and substantial wage
increases. However, more time is certainly needed before Chinese
workers emerge as a force to be reckoned with.but it will happen.
== 3 of 8 ==
Date: Sun, Oct 31 2010 6:24 pm
From: "Ray Keller"
"Raymond" wrote in message
news:7d65fc5f-d120-46d8-86a4-2614d93d1372@j18g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
another mentally ill leftard.
plink
== 4 of 8 ==
Date: Sun, Oct 31 2010 7:39 pm
From: ByeStander
On Sun, 31 Oct 2010 15:15:31 -0700 (PDT), Raymond <Bluerhymer@aol.com>
wrote:
>Don't unions ultimately drive jobs offshore?
>In an economy based on competition, companies are driven to cut costs
>and increase profits in pretty much any way they can.
>
>This sets in
>place a "race to the bottom".
This is your premise - "race to the bottom". All of your remaining
post relies on this premise. If the premise is ends up being false,
or not universally true, than your entire argument collapses.
I challenge you on your premise. Please substantiate your reasoning
to support the conclusion that a job becomes a "race to the bottom".
== 5 of 8 ==
Date: Sun, Oct 31 2010 6:56 pm
From: John Galt
On 10/31/2010 9:39 PM, ByeStander wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Oct 2010 15:15:31 -0700 (PDT), Raymond<Bluerhymer@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Don't unions ultimately drive jobs offshore?
>> In an economy based on competition, companies are driven to cut costs
>> and increase profits in pretty much any way they can.
>>
>> This sets in
>> place a "race to the bottom".
>
> This is your premise - "race to the bottom". All of your remaining
> post relies on this premise. If the premise is ends up being false,
> or not universally true, than your entire argument collapses.
>
> I challenge you on your premise. Please substantiate your reasoning
> to support the conclusion that a job becomes a "race to the bottom".
Agreed. It is more likely that it's a "race to the top."
Complainants about the job offshoring all make a VERY QUESTIONABLE
assumption, that being that IF the jobs had NOT been offshored, that the
US companies that offshored their jobs would still be in business (or,
even if in business, would not be shrinking due to foreign competition).
Gotta think the entire problem through. No US company ever wanted to
offshore a job. It's a pain in the ass managing a workforce that's awake
when you want to be asleep. They did so for a REASON; the
anti-offshoring crowd all says the reason was "greed", without even a
thought to look at the competitive issues involved.
JG
== 6 of 8 ==
Date: Sun, Oct 31 2010 7:34 pm
From: Raymond
On Oct 31, 9:56 pm, John Galt <kady...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/31/2010 9:39 PM, ByeStander wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 31 Oct 2010 15:15:31 -0700 (PDT), Raymond<Bluerhy...@aol.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >> Don't unions ultimately drive jobs offshore?
> >> In an economy based on competition, companies are driven to cut costs
> >> and increase profits in pretty much any way they can.
>
> >> This sets in
> >> place a "race to the bottom".
>
> > This is your premise - "race to the bottom". All of your remaining
> > post relies on this premise. If the premise is ends up being false,
> > or not universally true, than your entire argument collapses.
>
> > I challenge you on your premise. Please substantiate your reasoning
> > to support the conclusion that a job becomes a "race to the bottom".
>
> Agreed. It is more likely that it's a "race to the top."
>
> Complainants about the job offshoring all make a VERY QUESTIONABLE
> assumption, that being that IF the jobs had NOT been offshored, that the
> US companies that offshored their jobs would still be in business (or,
> even if in business, would not be shrinking due to foreign competition).
>
> Gotta think the entire problem through. No US company ever wanted to
> offshore a job. It's a pain in the ass managing a workforce that's awake
> when you want to be asleep. They did so for a REASON; the
> anti-offshoring crowd all says the reason was "greed", without even a
> thought to look at the competitive issues involved.
>
> JG- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Many American companies ...like top U.S. Defense Contractors move
offshore to avoid taxes .
A "no bid contractor" usually refers to a private for-profit
corporation that receives American tax payer monies in large amounts
(billions of dollars) without having to competitively bid for the
contract. One of the most famous "no bid contractors" is Halliburton.
Since Bush and Cheney have been in the White House, Halliburton has
received tens of billions of dollars of our money.
There's four important things to remind ourselves about
Halliburton...
Dick Cheney served as its CEO right before becoming Bush's VP,
Halliburton has received numerous "no bid" contracts since Bush became
the U.S. President,
Halliburton made profits hand over fist in Iraq, and,
Halliburton moved its corporate offices out of Texas and into the
Middle Eastern country of Dubai so that Halliburton could avoid paying
U.S. taxes.
In other words, Halliburton has had carte blanche access to our tax
payer funds, has profited enormously by banking our tax payer monies,
but then, Halliburton itself does all it can do to doing its part to
support the government that feeds it.
Now, there's even more to report...
Another "no bid" defense contractor moved offshore to avoid U.S. laws
and to avoid paying U.S. taxes. This one was also a part of the
Halliburton/Dick Cheney gravy train. It has moved it's payroll offices
to the Cayman Islands in order to sidestep U.S. laws:
SEE
http://www.everydaycitizen.com/2008/03/cayman_islands_shell_companies.html
Offshore Companies Do $1 Billion in Business with US Government
Lawmakers estimate corporations that have moved to low-tax countries
cost the U.S. treasury $4 billion a year.
by Jonathan D. Salant
WASHINGTON -- Associated Press. Companies that reduced their U.S. tax
bill by incorporating overseas did $1 billion worth of business with
the federal government last year, an Associated Press computer
analysis of federal contracts showed.
The Bermuda-based consulting company Accenture Ltd., a spinoff of the
former Big Five accounting firm Arthur Andersen, was the biggest
federal customer. It received $662 million in contracts between Oct.
1, 2001, and Sept. 30, 2002, mostly from the Transportation Security
Administration.
The engineering firm Foster Wheeler Ltd. received $293.2 million.
Ingersoll-Rand Co. Ltd., which boasts that its equipment helped carve
Mount Rushmore, received $7.6 million.
During the federal fiscal year that ended in September 2001, companies
with offshore headquarters received $846 million in federal contracts,
according to the House Ways and Means Committee's Democratic staff.
"It's outrageous that we would do business with these folks," said
Rep. Richard Neal, D-Mass., who has introduced legislation to continue
taxing companies that move their headquarters overseas. "They are
shirking their citizenship."
The process is known as corporate inversion: A company moves its
headquarters -- sometimes nothing more than a post office box -- to a
low-tax enclave such as Bermuda or the Cayman Islands while leaving
its operations and employees in the United States.
The Senate twice has passed legislation to prevent the new Homeland
Security Department from doing business with companies that relocate
overseas, but both times the provision was removed from the final bill
by House Republican leaders.
Jonathan Grella, a spokesman for House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-
Texas, said the issue should be addressed as part of an overhaul of
the tax system. Republicans have blamed high U.S. taxes for the
problem.
Corporations that have moved overseas spent $5 million to lobby
Congress and the federal agencies and donated $1.2 million to
campaigns in 2001 and 2002, according to an AP analysis of data from
Political Money Line, an Internet site.
To fight legislation restricting their ability to move offshore, the
companies have assembled an all-star team of lobbyists, including
former Sens. Slade Gorton, R-Wash., and Dennis DeConcini, D-Ariz.;
former House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Archer, R-Texas;
and former House Appropriations Committee Chairman Bob Livingston, R-
La., according to disclosure forms filed with the House and Senate.
Company officials said the tax breaks that result from moving their
headquarters overseas keep them competitive.
"We felt that American companies, based upon the tax laws that are
written today, are clearly put at an economic disadvantage to foreign
companies," said Victoria Guennewig, a spokeswoman for Cooper
Industries Ltd., a company that makes electrical products and tools.
It moved from Houston to Bermuda in 2002 and received $3.6 million in
government contracts last year.
Lawmakers estimate corporations that have moved to low-tax countries
cost the U.S. treasury $4 billion a year.
"People should be screaming to the rafters about the hypocrisy
involved in corporations moving offshore and then coming back to the
taxpayers for a handout in the form of government contracts," said
Charlie Cray, director of the campaign for corporate reform at Citizen
Works, an advocacy group affiliated with consumer advocate Ralph
Nader.
Ingersoll-Rand spokesman Paul Dickard said preventing companies such
as his from seeking government contracts would hurt the company's
26,000 U.S. workers.
"They're not necessarily hurting the company as much as they're
hurting U.S.-based employees," Dickard said. "That would be
unfortunate."
One of the Homeland Security Department's agencies, the Transportation
Security Administration, gave Accenture a contract of close to $515
million to handle human resources for the agency's employees,
including administering health insurance, life insurance and
retirement benefits.
Accenture, which began as the consulting arm of Chicago-based Andersen
Worldwide, said the company shouldn't be included on a list of
corporate expatriates because it never was a U.S.-based corporation.
But House Democratic lawmakers and others who want to change the law
disagree.
"They are a spinoff of Arthur Andersen," said Robert Borosage, co-
chairman of the Campaign for America's Future, a liberal research and
advocacy group. "Their contracting is significantly done with American
companies. If they want to get contracts with the federal government,
they ought to pay taxes."
Companies who move offshore to save federal taxes still get federal
contracts
NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - If you haven't turned on a TV or read a
magazine or a newspaper recently, you probably haven't heard that your
job is moving overseas.
Odds are, it's not, of course. But a growing number of jobs are, and
many of them are higher-skilled jobs that once seemed immune to
outsourcing.
U.S. companies moving jobs offshore has helped keep the job market in
its most painful slump since World War II, creating tremendous worry
for millions of workers and triggering a vigorous national debate
about how best to respond.
Here are some of the more common proposals, along with some of the
arguments for and against:
Scrap WTO, trade pacts
http://money.cnn.com/2004/03/01/news/economy/outsourcing_solutions/.
Let;s be realistic; It's hman nature.
"Greed is good indeed." Stockholders don't care where the company is
located or who they hire. Do I get a dividend?
== 7 of 8 ==
Date: Sun, Oct 31 2010 8:05 pm
From: John Galt
On 10/31/2010 9:34 PM, Raymond wrote:
> On Oct 31, 9:56 pm, John Galt<kady...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 10/31/2010 9:39 PM, ByeStander wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Sun, 31 Oct 2010 15:15:31 -0700 (PDT), Raymond<Bluerhy...@aol.com>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>> Don't unions ultimately drive jobs offshore?
>>>> In an economy based on competition, companies are driven to cut costs
>>>> and increase profits in pretty much any way they can.
>>
>>>> This sets in
>>>> place a "race to the bottom".
>>
>>> This is your premise - "race to the bottom". All of your remaining
>>> post relies on this premise. If the premise is ends up being false,
>>> or not universally true, than your entire argument collapses.
>>
>>> I challenge you on your premise. Please substantiate your reasoning
>>> to support the conclusion that a job becomes a "race to the bottom".
>>
>> Agreed. It is more likely that it's a "race to the top."
>>
>> Complainants about the job offshoring all make a VERY QUESTIONABLE
>> assumption, that being that IF the jobs had NOT been offshored, that the
>> US companies that offshored their jobs would still be in business (or,
>> even if in business, would not be shrinking due to foreign competition).
>>
>> Gotta think the entire problem through. No US company ever wanted to
>> offshore a job. It's a pain in the ass managing a workforce that's awake
>> when you want to be asleep. They did so for a REASON; the
>> anti-offshoring crowd all says the reason was "greed", without even a
>> thought to look at the competitive issues involved.
>>
>> JG- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>
> Many American companies ...like top U.S. Defense Contractors move
> offshore to avoid taxes .
Agreed. That's all part of "competitiveness".
> A "no bid contractor" usually refers to a private for-profit
> corporation that receives American tax payer monies in large amounts
> (billions of dollars) without having to competitively bid for the
> contract. One of the most famous "no bid contractors" is Halliburton.
> Since Bush and Cheney have been in the White House, Halliburton has
> received tens of billions of dollars of our money.
We were talking about job offshoring. Why are we moving to Halliburton,
which is a very different matter?
>
> There's four important things to remind ourselves about
> Halliburton...
>
> Dick Cheney served as its CEO right before becoming Bush's VP,
And? Nothing illegal about that, right?
> Halliburton has received numerous "no bid" contracts since Bush became
> the U.S. President,
And under Clinton.
> Halliburton made profits hand over fist in Iraq, and,
> Halliburton moved its corporate offices out of Texas and into the
> Middle Eastern country of Dubai so that Halliburton could avoid paying
> U.S. taxes.
Yes.
> In other words, Halliburton has had carte blanche access to our tax
> payer funds, has profited enormously by banking our tax payer monies,
> but then, Halliburton itself does all it can do to doing its part to
> support the government that feeds it.
Yep. It's about time for the government to kill the corporate tax in its
present form. It's killing us.
> Now, there's even more to report...
>
> Another "no bid" defense contractor moved offshore to avoid U.S. laws
> and to avoid paying U.S. taxes. This one was also a part of the
> Halliburton/Dick Cheney gravy train. It has moved it's payroll offices
> to the Cayman Islands in order to sidestep U.S. laws:
> SEE
> http://www.everydaycitizen.com/2008/03/cayman_islands_shell_companies.html
>
> Offshore Companies Do $1 Billion in Business with US Government
> Lawmakers estimate corporations that have moved to low-tax countries
> cost the U.S. treasury $4 billion a year.
> by Jonathan D. Salant
>
> WASHINGTON -- Associated Press. Companies that reduced their U.S. tax
> bill by incorporating overseas did $1 billion worth of business with
> the federal government last year, an Associated Press computer
> analysis of federal contracts showed.
>
> The Bermuda-based consulting company Accenture Ltd., a spinoff of the
> former Big Five accounting firm Arthur Andersen, was the biggest
> federal customer. It received $662 million in contracts between Oct.
> 1, 2001, and Sept. 30, 2002, mostly from the Transportation Security
> Administration.
Yep. There was a very large congressional hearing about this when it
occurred. Both sides of the aisle threw up their hands and admitted that
the feds are dependent on Accenture.
>
> The engineering firm Foster Wheeler Ltd. received $293.2 million.
> Ingersoll-Rand Co. Ltd., which boasts that its equipment helped carve
> Mount Rushmore, received $7.6 million.
And Transocean, and Weatherford........
>
> During the federal fiscal year that ended in September 2001, companies
> with offshore headquarters received $846 million in federal contracts,
> according to the House Ways and Means Committee's Democratic staff.
>
> "It's outrageous that we would do business with these folks," said
> Rep. Richard Neal, D-Mass., who has introduced legislation to continue
> taxing companies that move their headquarters overseas. "They are
> shirking their citizenship."
"Shirking their citizenship"? Geez. And the Dems have the nerve to call
OTHER people "stupid", while their own guys display a complete ignorance
of basic financial markets?
They're not "shirking" anything. Their job is to protect the interests
of their shareholders. Period. NOt the citizens. That's a socialist model.
>
> The process is known as corporate inversion: A company moves its
> headquarters -- sometimes nothing more than a post office box -- to a
> low-tax enclave such as Bermuda or the Cayman Islands while leaving
> its operations and employees in the United States.
Goddamn Internet. Turned the tax system of the largest nation in the
world right on its ear. :-)
>
> The Senate twice has passed legislation to prevent the new Homeland
> Security Department from doing business with companies that relocate
> overseas, but both times the provision was removed from the final bill
> by House Republican leaders.
I should hope so. It would be inflationary.
>
> Jonathan Grella, a spokesman for House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-
> Texas, said the issue should be addressed as part of an overhaul of
> the tax system. Republicans have blamed high U.S. taxes for the
> problem.
They are correct, in part.
>
> Corporations that have moved overseas spent $5 million to lobby
> Congress and the federal agencies and donated $1.2 million to
> campaigns in 2001 and 2002, according to an AP analysis of data from
> Political Money Line, an Internet site.
>
> To fight legislation restricting their ability to move offshore, the
> companies have assembled an all-star team of lobbyists, including
> former Sens. Slade Gorton, R-Wash., and Dennis DeConcini, D-Ariz.;
> former House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Archer, R-Texas;
> and former House Appropriations Committee Chairman Bob Livingston, R-
> La., according to disclosure forms filed with the House and Senate.
>
> Company officials said the tax breaks that result from moving their
> headquarters overseas keep them competitive.
It does. If the corporate tax were repealed, the pressure to do so would
abate to some extent.
>
> "We felt that American companies, based upon the tax laws that are
> written today, are clearly put at an economic disadvantage to foreign
> companies," said Victoria Guennewig, a spokeswoman for Cooper
> Industries Ltd., a company that makes electrical products and tools.
> It moved from Houston to Bermuda in 2002 and received $3.6 million in
> government contracts last year.
>
> Lawmakers estimate corporations that have moved to low-tax countries
> cost the U.S. treasury $4 billion a year.
They probably lose 10 times that from retirees who move overseas and
"forget" to report foreign earnings. (But, I'm sure the number has
already grown substantially over the last few years).
>
> "People should be screaming to the rafters about the hypocrisy
> involved in corporations moving offshore and then coming back to the
> taxpayers for a handout in the form of government contracts," said
> Charlie Cray, director of the campaign for corporate reform at Citizen
> Works, an advocacy group affiliated with consumer advocate Ralph
> Nader.
Hmmmmm. Competing for government contracts is "hypocrisy?" Rubbish. It's
their job to compete for anything they can.
>
> Ingersoll-Rand spokesman Paul Dickard said preventing companies such
> as his from seeking government contracts would hurt the company's
> 26,000 U.S. workers.
Yep. Guess we should fix our tax system.
>
> "They're not necessarily hurting the company as much as they're
> hurting U.S.-based employees," Dickard said. "That would be
> unfortunate."
Yep. Guess we should fix our tax system.
>
> One of the Homeland Security Department's agencies, the Transportation
> Security Administration, gave Accenture a contract of close to $515
> million to handle human resources for the agency's employees,
> including administering health insurance, life insurance and
> retirement benefits.
>
> Accenture, which began as the consulting arm of Chicago-based Andersen
> Worldwide, said the company shouldn't be included on a list of
> corporate expatriates because it never was a U.S.-based corporation.
>
That's true.
> But House Democratic lawmakers and others who want to change the law
> disagree.
>
> "They are a spinoff of Arthur Andersen," said Robert Borosage, co-
> chairman of the Campaign for America's Future, a liberal research and
> advocacy group. "Their contracting is significantly done with American
> companies. If they want to get contracts with the federal government,
> they ought to pay taxes."
He's wrong. If the government wants to limit it's contracts to US firms
only, they can, but they signed a treaty not to do that with the WTC
during the Clinton Administration.
Oh, what a tangled web we weave for ourselves.....
...and then complain when we get caught in it.
JG
>
> Companies who move offshore to save federal taxes still get federal
> contracts
>
> NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - If you haven't turned on a TV or read a
> magazine or a newspaper recently, you probably haven't heard that your
> job is moving overseas.
>
> Odds are, it's not, of course. But a growing number of jobs are, and
> many of them are higher-skilled jobs that once seemed immune to
> outsourcing.
>
> U.S. companies moving jobs offshore has helped keep the job market in
> its most painful slump since World War II, creating tremendous worry
> for millions of workers and triggering a vigorous national debate
> about how best to respond.
>
> Here are some of the more common proposals, along with some of the
> arguments for and against:
>
> Scrap WTO, trade pacts
>
> .http://money.cnn.com/2004/03/01/news/economy/outsourcing_solutions/.
>
> Let;s be realistic; It's hman nature.
> "Greed is good indeed." Stockholders don't care where the company is
> located or who they hire. Do I get a dividend?
== 8 of 8 ==
Date: Sun, Oct 31 2010 10:10 pm
From: Gunner Asch
On Sun, 31 Oct 2010 19:34:02 -0700 (PDT), Raymond <Bluerhymer@aol.com>
wrote:
>One of the most famous "no bid contractors" is Halliburton.
>Since Bush and Cheney have been in the White House, Halliburton has
>received tens of billions of dollars of our money.
You are aware, are you not..that Clinton also used Halliburton as a No
Bid contractor, and he and the Democrats showered Halliburton with much
praise and lots and lots of government contracts.
Dont believe me? Then you are incredibly ignorant.....
Just a few examples.....
http://mysite.verizon.net/vze1tvxm/thepoliticalarena/The%20Truth%20About%20Halliburton.htm
http://www.randomjottings.net/archives/000091.html
September 19, 2003
Clinton sweetheart deal with Halliburton...
Rich Lowry pours a cold bucket of facts and truth on the smears against
the Halliburton Corporation. It won't make any difference to the
scoundrels who are deliberately spreading lies. But perhaps you RJ
readers will be interested:
...The Clinton administration made the same calculation in its own
dealings with Halliburton. The company had won the LOGCAP in 1992, then
lost it in 1997. The Clinton administration nonetheless awarded a no-bid
contract to Halliburton to continue its work in the Balkans supporting
the U.S. peacekeeping mission there because it made little sense to
change midstream. According to Byron York, Al Gore's
reinventing-government panel even singled out Halliburton for praise for
its military logistics work...
"...the U.S. Army Logistics Civil Augmentation Program, or LOGCAP... is
a multiyear contract for a corporation to be on call to provide whatever
services might be needed quickly..." Halliburton has frequently been the
low-bidder on LOGCAP, and both no-bid contracts were been made in the
context of many Halliburton low bids to do exactly the same things. The
idea that Dick Cheney just tossed a crony contract to his old firm is
rubbish spread by toads who get to sleep quietly at night because decent
Americans like Mr Cheney and the folks at Halliburton roll up their
sleeves and tackle horrible problems in faraway places. And if they are
well-paid for it, good! They deserve it. It doesn't look to me like they
are nearly as overpaid as the NGO's and multinational institutions that
the snivelers would prefer.
And imagine if the expected massive oil-field fires had actually
occurred, and our response had been delayed for even a week by red tape.
How the Bush haters would have crowed about the Administration's "lack
of planning."
"Confiscating wealth from those who have earned it, inherited it,
or got lucky is never going to help 'the poor.' Poverty isn't
caused by some people having more money than others, just as obesity
isn't caused by McDonald's serving super-sized orders of French fries
Poverty, like obesity, is caused by the life choices that dictate
results." - John Tucci,
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Cody Sutton & Jeff Moseley, Satanic Killers, GOP ?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.autos/t/ebcc3fb757bfe10b?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Oct 31 2010 3:05 pm
From:
Cody Sutton & Jeff Moseley, Satanic Killers, GOP ?
No ! Not only Satanic Killers of a Satanic Lodge, but above all a MOSSAD
LODGE,
UNDER VATICAN KILLERS AND RUSSIAN POWER !
Cody Sutton spreads ticks of many kind, which are infected of many
bacteria, giving many diseases to the inventors, and Jeff robs
inventions and sells to NASA, where are other gangsters.
Any analisis in hospital, of a poor inventor struck by the GHP's
gang, is controlled by a Catholic sister, who will inform OPUS
DEI's agents : they will falsify any analisis of the poor
inventor.
The poor inventor must die, because MOSSAD must reign over America
and over the world.
MOSSAD and its King : the AntiChrist Rotschild, living in London.
The local boss of this SHAME......................, can be Dick
Cheny ?
Why not, DICK, ????
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
GOP, your Sara Palin, knows what is Russian Power, and Russian MaFFFFia
?
Russian MaFFFFia is veru strong, and controls ISRAEL and MOSSAD.
Jeff Moseley and Cody Sutton, are two Satanic MOSSAD Lodge's members,
PALIN ?
Two MOSSAD members, payed by ISRAEL, for controlling the NASA
FRAUDS ?
Or only two thiefs cheats Tainters ?
Two or much more, plague-spreaders from HOUSTON, working for NASA - MAFFFIA
?
NASA _ MAFFFFFIA,
which ROBBED many Inventions,
which BOUGHT and SOLD FALSE OR COPIED PATENTS,
KILLING THE INVENTORS,
PRO ISRAEL AND MOSSAD FROM LONDON (Rotschild),
thanks to BUSH father and son, Cheney, and others GOP's VIP ????????
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Is GOP-Israel Lodge making jobles, Jeff Coward???or Killer ?
Not only Coward, but also Chief, Cheat, Tainter !
Jeff Moseley, is your SATANIC MOSSAD'S LODGE,
making jobless on the US ???
Jeff and Cody, do you spread infections and lethal ticks
on the Americans inventors, for making Jobless ?
Are your SATANIC Lodge Under LONDON-MOSSAD's AntiChrist,
come up from Hell ?
MOSSAD's Satanic Lodge in Houston - TX !!!
Is Bish on the hands of Antichrists ?
ISRAEL-GOP plan, against US ?
Israeli Satanic Lodge with Cody Sutton & C. ?
http://www.houston.org/greater-houston-partnership/about-us/staff.asp
What can you say, Jeff Moseley ?
Who is the responsible of MOSSAD, you have as boss ?
Zionists plan, pro-Israel, in ACCORD WITH a Secret GOP-Lodge
of Satanists VIP from Houston - Texas !:
NASA must rob any invention, worldwide, and use any invention by MOSSAD
agents, BLOCKING ANY EFFECTIVE INDUSTRIAL UTILIZATION.
How ?
The phisycian Cody Sutton (or Coward SATAN ?) by SATAN-LODGE,
is charged to kill or paralyse anyn inventor, by
means of bacteriua or ticks, thanks to escorts or prostitutes.
Sutton infected the Eng. Romano De Simone by some effective paralyzing
ticks.
Very very very intelligent system !!!!!!!!!!..... effective for
PARALYZING OVER 30 AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL FIELDS OF THE SPALIC
TECHNOLOGY .
In detail :
NASA have an office in Russia, by an idea of Bush-Cheny pair, where hide
the good technologies, AVAILABLE FOR the ECONOMICAL GROWTH OF US.
NASA's diverted Lodge ( pro-Israel - RUSSIA . The russian jews in Israel
are about 500.000 people)
must rob any invention, and block, fighing the poor inventors. How and
Why ?
1) Because the inventor is the SPRING of technology and the SPRING of
American Prosperity.
(How ?:
A Criminal Phisician as boss of Industrals Association of HOUSTON : Cody
Sutton.
Decided by NASA-MOSSAD_RUSSIA association !!!
In accord with Bush and Cheney !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
2) Without prosperity is impossible to have a good army.
3) Without a good army, will win the great Banking Treasure : ISRAEL,
the GREAT ISRAEL !!!
Hurrahhhh for ISRAEL, fame over the GLOBE.
4) Without a good army, is impossible, TO BOMB ISRAEL !!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The first steps of the PLAN :
A) The 9/11 attacks, by 3000 bombs into the 3 towers (3 is the
perfect number of jewishes).
and by a missile against Pentagon, from a Dolphine Israeli Submarine.
B) The spreading of SubPrime Loans, in all US.
C) The withdrawl of 500 billions $ from the US banks , at 9/18 of 2008,
sparking of the GLOBAL ECONOMICAL CRISIS.
==================================================================
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
==================================================
1� Step of a good plot)
About September 13-15 2001, in Rome, Romano De Simone was talking with
Vittorio Halfon, High Level Jew of international influence, agent of
Israel.
"Your opinion was correct, Romano, were the our AGENTS in NYC
(The WTC's Authors). They are geniuses. Few thousands of dead, for
making many millions dollars, accusing Arabs. Wall Street collapses,
but they it rayse up again."
2� Step of a good plot)
Spreading in hole US the Subprime Loans, and ROBBING the inventions,
this is the SPRINGS OF THE prosperity of America, inclusive SPALIC of
Romano De Simone (www.spalic.com), having dozens utilizations,
from the sanitary until spatial fields.
3� Step of a good plot)
Withdrawing of 500 billion dollars from the US's banks during 2 hours,
at September, 18 2008, for sparking off a global economical crisis
against American Workers, and dominating worldwide.
=================================================
=================================================
With the 11 September 2001, for the first time in the history, a
militar attack BY A LOT OF BOMB, had become a film.
How all the world it has been able to see, the tele-camera to take back the
scene, did'nt be trotting, as when it happens an unexpected event, but
were
well supported on the ground, waiting to arrival of the airplanes, of which
were AWARE only the organizers of the attack, and no-one else on the
world.
But who were these art directors, very very special?
On signaling of a lady, that had seen three men shooting the scene, very
happy
and smiling and for nothing shocked, from a white van, of which she had
taken the plate, the police has verified that:
1) The van was property of an Israeli company : the "Urban Moving System".
2) After detained the van many hours after, had halted the police five mens
among the 22 and the 27 years, which one had in pocket 4700 dollars, that
were able be only the remuneration of the film.
3) The driver of the van was such Sivan Kurzberg, and the other were Paul
Kurzberg, Yaron Samuel, Oded Ellner and Omer Marmari, who resulted all
Israeli citizens.
4) The Jewish daily paper of New York has brought that two mens of them, in
accordance with the FBI, were agents of the Israeli intelligence.
The URBAN MOVING SYSTEM company, owner of the van, it is resulted of
ownership of the Israel state.
The administrator of the URBAN MOVING SYSTEM company, Dominick Otto Suter,
year 1970, whose Social Security Number is 129-78-0926, he escaped in Israel
the same day 11-September-2001.
Three months after the attack at two towers, a troupe of the television net
ABC has shot inside the offices of the URBAN MOVING SYSTEM
company: they appeared deserted in a great hurry, even with objects of
ownership of the customers of company.
The URBAN MOVING SYSTEM company were missing.
It's possible to conclude saying that the responsibility of the attacks at
two towers are not of the Israel government ?.
========================================
========================================
THE COINCIDENCES:
The two falling towers, have been filmed exclusively by hebrews from Israel
No comments:
Post a Comment