• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Halliburton building death camps for the coming American Genocide

DeeJayH said:
so than why didnt Slick Willy use one or all of them instead of Halliburton?:confused:
Click to expand...

Politics probably. I would imagine besides being an early insider in D.C. under Nixon (deja-vu!) and as a Representative for Wyoming, Cheney's stints as White House Chief of Staff under Ford, and Secretary of Defense under George H. W. Bush set him up quite nicely with a lot of political pull and contacts. As CEO of Halliburton, I'm sure he had no problem working the system from both ends. In those days, the neocon movement was in full swing, so he had a lot of help on the inside.
Help from those like Don Rumsfeld, Cheney's mentor, who set up the "Project for a New American Century" in 1997 along with many founders and co-conspirators of the Neocon movement... Elloitt Abrams (Iran-Contra scandal), Midge Decter and her husband Norman Podhoretz, etc., as well as Scooter Libby, Paul Wolfowitz, Bill Bennett, Dan Quayle, Jeb Bush, and others. Quite a tight group on the inside, all holding key positions from the Reagan and George H. W. years.
 
Billo_Really said:
Because he is just as crooked as all the other politicians we happen to elect.
Click to expand...

All? Perhaps to a point. However, in comparison to Clinton, it is apples to oranges not only in core philosophy, but in George, the quantity and severity of the scandals and actions of incompetence under his "leadership" is so overwhelming you have to dig and combine presidential misdeeds to come up with anything close to comparable.
 
Originally Posted by clearview
All? Perhaps to a point. However, in comparison to Clinton, it is apples to oranges not only in core philosophy, but in George, the quantity and severity of the scandals and actions of incompetence under his "leadership" is so overwhelming you have to dig and combine presidential misdeeds to come up with anything close to comparable.
Click to expand...
Gorgeous George is a piece of work.
 
clearview said:
All? Perhaps to a point. However, in comparison to Clinton, it is apples to oranges not only in core philosophy, but in George, the quantity and severity of the scandals and actions of incompetence under his "leadership" is so overwhelming you have to dig and combine presidential misdeeds to come up with anything close to comparable.
Click to expand...

I guess that depends on how subjective and biased your sources are.
Clinton had many scandals and started his fair share of military actions during his term.

Clinton was a pretty lousy president too.
 
SixStringHero said:
I guess that depends on how subjective and biased your sources are.
Clinton had many scandals and started his fair share of military actions during his term.
Clinton was a pretty lousy president too.
Click to expand...
As for lousy, Clinton wasn't perfect, but we'll leave that to our own opinion. Your perception is your reality. I agree though, it does depend on sources. With FOIA, much of what is talked about can be verified now through official government documents. For instance, the White House stated at one point that none of the oil company execs allegedly in cahoots with Cheney (as said by liberals) were not present at Cheney's secret energy meetings. But, according to the official records kept by the Secret Service, the execs were indeed there. At this point, I'm so tired of not knowing when Bush and buddies are telling the truth because so many lies have been exposed, I find it hard to believe anything. You could, if you wanted, go back and search records to find all dirt on all presidents, but it still wouldn't justify the acts of the current administration... two wrongs do not make a right, and we have to do something about what is happening NOW.
 
clearview said:
As for lousy, Clinton wasn't perfect, but we'll leave that to our own opinion. Your perception is your reality. I agree though, it does depend on sources. With FOIA, much of what is talked about can be verified now through official government documents. For instance, the White House stated at one point that none of the oil company execs allegedly in cahoots with Cheney (as said by liberals) were not present at Cheney's secret energy meetings. But, according to the official records kept by the Secret Service, the execs were indeed there. At this point, I'm so tired of not knowing when Bush and buddies are telling the truth because so many lies have been exposed, I find it hard to believe anything. You could, if you wanted, go back and search records to find all dirt on all presidents, but it still wouldn't justify the acts of the current administration... two wrongs do not make a right, and we have to do something about what is happening NOW.
Click to expand...

got a little tip for you about when to spot when a politician is lying

anytime His/Her Lips are moving

welcome to Politics 101
 
DeeJayH said:
got a little tip for you about when to spot when a politician is lying

anytime His/Her Lips are moving

welcome to Politics 101
Click to expand...
:lol: Too true.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom