Some Backstory for LG on Limbaugh and the GOP

#26
#26
volinbham said:
I don't doubt RL wouldn't support a moderate/centrist candidate (depending on what aspects of their platform are moderate).

I also don't believe that Colin Powell style Republican is what the party is looking for either. A fiscal conservative, socially moderate (or unconcerned), limited government candidate would do better than a Powell-style Republican. So long as the candidate isn't a hardcore social conservative (e.g. Palin) I think things would be fine.

A guy like Gulliani (if it weren't for his checkered past) represents the style that could be quite successful.

Obama is a perfect example of how you don't have to be anywhere close to the middle to gain popular support.
Click to expand...

Who buys that Colin Powell is a Republican?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#27
#27
BigPapaVol said:
Who buys that Colin Powell is a Republican?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

According to press accounts, Mr. Powell argued that America has changed, and "Americans do want to pay taxes for services" and "Americans are looking for more government in their life, not less."
Click to expand...

How in the world he can claim to be Republican is beyond me.
 
#28
#28
BigPapaVol said:
Who buys that Colin Powell is a Republican?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Nobody with a clue. It's funny to me that the guy with social and economic views out of step with the party who also endorsed the Democrat in the last election is the one acting indignant.
 
Last edited:
#32
#32
Ya, I have never understood the thinking that Rush was the leader. Love him or hate him all he has ever been was a conservative voice of the Republican party. Yes, he has been brought in on an advisory level, and has openly expressed how he believes the Party should act or move. That's his right and his prerogative.
 
#33
#33
OrangeYankee said:
Ya, I have never understood the thinking that Rush was the leader. Love him or hate him all he has ever been was a conservative voice of the Republican party.
Click to expand...
No, he's also been a hypocritical junkie and an errand boy for the Kansas City Royals. Don't leave out those impressive parts of his resume.
 
#35
#35
hatvol96 said:
Trashing people is the only skill Cheney and Rove have. If you make them stop that, Cheney will be reduced to counting the money he's siphoned from the government to Haliburton & Co. and Rove will have to go back to his job as a character actor playing "Fat, dorky kid as an adult" in Disney Channel movies.
Click to expand...

you mean the billions that haliburton lost on their iraq contracts?
 
#37
#37
lawgator1 said:
You really believe that Halliburton overall lost money on the Iraq contracts?
Click to expand...

Are you implying they faked their accounting records? answer this. if they made billions on these contracts why did they spin off that part of the company 4 years ago? wouldn't they want to keep such a profitable company?
 
#38
#38
droski said:
Are you implying they faked their accounting records? answer this. if they made billions on these contracts why did they spin off that part of the company 4 years ago? wouldn't they want to keep such a profitable company?
Click to expand...


Come on, droski. You know there are all sorts of accounting, tax, and other reasons to spin off a particular company. You can probably find a division or two within Hallubrton's penumbra of companies that showed a loss, but the folks at the top weren't doing this for their health.
 
#39
#39
lawgator1 said:
Come on, droski. You know there are all sorts of accounting, tax, and other reasons to spin off a particular company. You can probably find a division or two within Hallubrton's penumbra of companies that showed a loss, but the folks at the top weren't doing this for their health.
Click to expand...

companies do not spin off extremely profitable divisions. and yes you can find a division that showed big losses and that division was the one in charge of the iraq contracts. a simple google search will confirm this. HAL made it's money because oil was at $140 a barrell, it had NOTHING to do with dick cheney or iraq. They vastly underestimated the costs of iraq because they vastly underestimated how long it would take to get stability in the country.
 
#41
#41
lawgator1 said:
Come on, droski. You know there are all sorts of accounting, tax, and other reasons to spin off a particular company. You can probably find a division or two within Hallubrton's penumbra of companies that showed a loss, but the folks at the top weren't doing this for their health.
Click to expand...
why did those folks spin off this piece?
 
#42
#42
BigPapaVol said:
why did those folks spin off this piece?
Click to expand...


I haven't the foggiest. I also haven't the time or the inclination to go research it.

But the notion that Cheney and the big guns at Halliburton lost money, on the whole, in Iraq is utterly absurd.
 
#43
#43
lawgator1 said:
I haven't the foggiest. I also haven't the time or the inclination to go research it.

But the notion that Cheney and the big guns at Halliburton lost money, on the whole, in Iraq is utterly absurd.
Click to expand...

Why is it absurd?
 
#46
#46
lawgator1 said:
I haven't the foggiest. I also haven't the time or the inclination to go research it.

But the notion that Cheney and the big guns at Halliburton lost money, on the whole, in Iraq is utterly absurd.
Click to expand...

Rush comes on in 10 minutes. Coincidence? I think not.
 
#47
#47
droski said:
why? because the media says differently? do you think it's cheap to operate in a country at war?
Click to expand...


I don't think its cheap. But I don't think they operated at a loss, either.

But I tell you what, you find an unbiased source who proves that Halliburton (and its constituent companies and organizations) overall lost money with the deals made in regard to Iraq, I'll donate $50 to the charity of your choice.
 
#48
#48
lawgator1 said:
I don't think its cheap. But I don't think they operated at a loss, either.

But I tell you what, you find an unbiased source who proves that Halliburton (and its constituent companies and organizations) overall lost money with the deals made in regard to Iraq, I'll donate $50 to the charity of your choice.
Click to expand...

THe media reports the gross number giving to halliburton, not the net, i.e. after expenses. The other thing never mentioned is that halliburton was by far the most qualified company to do this type of work.

This article is very old by the wsj, but shows that it was barely profitable. soon after it they started losing money. i'm trying to find an up to date one.

Halliburton, the profitless war profiteer. - By Daniel Gross - Slate Magazine

Indeed, in the third quarter of 2003, Iraq-related work generated $900 million in revenues but only about $21 million in after-tax profits for KBR. That adds up to a not very scandalous profit margin of 2.3%. On the other hand, in 2004 the Houston-based company's energy services business should earn over $1 billion on revenues of $7.6 billion. That equals a 13% profit margin, and that's why Halliburton's stock tracks the energy sector, not the government services or defense groups. Winning all that government work may have generated headlines, but if anything, says Slorer, the ensuing controversy has depressed Halliburton's shares.

So why is Halliburton in this business at all? Plenty of people are asking that question. On Wall Street there's increasing speculation that Halliburton will spin off KBR later this year. "If KBR were managed as a standalone entity, it could achieve better growth," says Slorer. "It's too small a division to get the kind of management focus or capital it needs."​
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top