Halliburton gets a Contract for 385 Billion dollars to build Detention Camps in the U.S.A

POSTED BY: piratejenny
UPDATED: Monday, February 27, 2006 17:45
VIEWED: 4284
PAGE 2 of 4

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

CITIZEN

Monday, February 13, 2006 12:51 AM

Well that didn't take long, I had hoped to have a bit more Bush apologetics before facts started to appear...

CitizenIs Bored of the unqulafied rhetoric…

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
You should never give powers to a leader you like that you’d hate to have given to a leader you fear

CHRISISALL

Monday, February 13, 2006 12:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I had hoped to have a bit more Bush apologetics before facts started to appear...

Apologetics?
I'll start:
I'm SORRY Bush is in office.
I'm SORRY he has no idea what his policies are doing to the world now, and in the future.
I'm sorry he used 911 to further his own agenda and ignore the real perpetrators of the act.

I could go on, but I'm soundin' mighty sorry already...

Sorrowful Chrisisall

ZISKER

Monday, February 13, 2006 1:34 AM

Ditto to CHRISISALL. Questioning a news story that smacks of sensationalism is hardly apologizing for Bush.

In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and is widely regarded as a bad move. - Douglas Adams

DREAMTROVE

Monday, February 13, 2006 3:15 AM

... and it was true about Clinton too. But then you know that. And Clinton is also really Bush, and Bush is really Clinton, because both were really Cheney, so "Same true story, same president" Not much conspiracy theory there.

I'm sure this is an exaggeration, but I wouldn't put it past Bush. I think the purpose of such a thing would be to re-institute slavery in the form of migrant labor camps for Mexicans.

As for the Bush apologisms, Bush is a sorry president to start with, so what else do you need to say. I'm not sure I'm to the point that Cheney who is called Bush is worse than Cheney who was called Clinton, except fiscally speaking of course, but I'm getting to the point of "As bad as."

All presidents IMHO get a score, 1-100%. The Bush crowd probably thinks I have this big yen to hate Bush because I would have really prefered McCain. But I gave Bush a chance, several of them, I liked his dad, and honestly, I thought he'd be okay. At the end of year one, Bush was down to 80% or so for me, some good, some bad, and what he needed to do was to can a couple of the bad guys and replace them with some better ones, Ashcroft could go and be replaced with someone more Spector-like, Rove could go and do what campaign strategists do and not participate in the actual running of the country. Then he could kick up from a B- back into A land.

But instead he got worse. By '04 for me, Bush was seriously into failing territor, probably headed from 60 towards 50ish. A second term shakeup was going to have to seriously turn this boat around. But it didn't. Now Bush is probably headed under 50 and falling fast. What the Bush lovers don't realize is that us on the not-so-pro side aren't all rating him at zero already, and we can always drastically revise down our opinion. On the forest measure for me Bush lost a solid 10 points. He's losing a couple on this UAE deal. He actually gained a couple on the state of the union address, but it's going to take a little more than hopeful words, like some actual action.

Finn said I don't give Bush credit for anything, that's not true. I thought Roberts was a good nominee. I actually think Alito will work out as well. He could have done a lot worse, so kudos Bush.

But overall, this is an appallingly low score. Bush isn't yet the worst president ever. I don't know who should hold the title. I'll throw some people in here, sorry if they're all democrats, feel free to fire back: Lyndon Johnson, Harry Truman, Woodrow Wilson, and Andrew Jackson. They're all still worse than Bush. So, on the American president's report card scale, Bush still has 30 points he can solidly lose. And, just so you know, I'm not knocking him points for continuing bad policy, but if he continues, I'm sure Bush will think of something that will make him worse than he is right now.

I think maybe for no good reason I'll throw a couple out here:

1. He can invade Iran. This might help him clinche the covetted title of "worst president ever" but only if the war claims at least a million lives, which it probably would.

2. He can introduce supplementals to spend for more large contracts that no one needs. This will only cost him a few points, but it takes every little bit to become WPE.

3. He can introduce a budget for '08 that includes blank check entitlement programs which have pork rolled corporate welfare for the special interests. I'm of course talking about healthcare which pays the providers what they ask for and in no way introduces open unregulated competition into the market.

4. He can introduce a national sales tax. This is sure to slow down the progress of the economy by reducing the number of actual transactions that take place. It's long been noted that taxing a behavior discourages it, so why not tax consumer spending? You're sure to reduce free market commerce in no time!

5. He can invade Syria in cooperation with Israel. While this will be nowhere near as bloody a war as the one with Iran, it will help secure in the minds of the world the image of the US as an agent of the Zionist

AURAPTOR

Monday, February 13, 2006 4:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Is very worried where the "free" world is going, Citizen has seen this history before...

Well, that didn't take long. I had hoped to see more personal, real life comments here, instead of the standard political rhetoric.

Chrisisall, making it his job to immortalize these meaningful words

I'll leave it to the likes of you to ignore such a thing as CONTEXT.

Yes, PirateJenny we'll all keep telling ourselves that. Since you are so far out in left field, what difference will it make anyways? ( mind the black helicopters, dear. )

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

STILLFREE

Monday, February 13, 2006 6:15 AM

Before everyone gets too carried away in one direction or another, this story IS true.

"The contract may also provide migrant detention support to other U.S. Government organizations in the event of an immigration emergency, as well as the development of a plan to react to a national emergency, such as a natural disaster. In the event of a natural disaster, the contractor could be tasked with providing housing for ICE personnel performing law enforcement functions in support of relief efforts. "
http://www.halliburton.com/default/main/halliburton/eng/news/source_fi
les/news.jsp?newsurl=/default/main/halliburton/eng/news/source_files/press_release/2006/kbrnws_012406.html

The camps can serve either as mass immigrant detention facilities or relief housing in case of national emergency. I haven't heard anywhere else in the news about fears of a "mass" influx of immigrants that would require these camps.

In light of the administrations dislike of dissenters ("free speech" zones, mass arrests of protestors), this makes me nervous. Especially considering the harsh and sometimes horribly unfair treatment of New Orleanians in the days following Katrina. Seeing my home turn into a prison affected my view of the administration, considering how much fun they were having instead of worrying about the hugest disaster in American history.

But I don't have the facts in front of me to make a statement that won't warrant a "tinfoil hat" label, so I'll keep my mouth shut. Suffice it to say that gnostic archons, black helicopters, and satanic sorcerors are involved. Oh yes. With bad weather guns.

DREAMTROVE

Monday, February 13, 2006 6:50 AM

No offense, but the story lacks a credible source. I'm backing off my original alarmist concern that this was part of Bush's 'guest worker program.'

So, the challenge I throw out to the radical left, who fed us this story, is:

1. Locate at least one credible source, and by credible, I mean:

Fox News
MSNBC
Guardian.co.uk
New York Times
Or something that is on the level of one of the above. It can be AlJazeera, I consider Aljazeera a more or less credible source.

2. Once we have a credible source, in a way which is in no way conspiracy theory linked (ie. jack went to school with sam who once ate pizza at joes, ergo there is a jack joe conspiracy) establish how and why Bush is setting up camps on US soil.

On an aside, I make "Bush is evil" arguments all the time, but mine come from solidly republican sources, like the fox news story I just posted that no one responded to. And I don't learn this in looney news and then go find them on fox, I tend to find out about them on the Fox News homepage. Given this, and here's where I am, I am always stunned and amazed at people who deny any of this. What have you guys been reading? I mean my fellow republicans who have not yet given up on Bush.

SIMONF

Monday, February 13, 2006 10:29 AM

I remember similar tales of facilities or camps back in the Reagan era. I don't think anything came of these either.

CITIZEN

Monday, February 13, 2006 10:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Zisker:
Ditto to CHRISISALL. Questioning a news story that smacks of sensationalism is hardly apologizing for Bush.

In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and is widely regarded as a bad move. - Douglas Adams

I never said it was, my comment had very little to do with this thread, in so it was off topic. It was more a rebuke too some members of this forum that get all manner of upset if anyone dares mention something that doesn't support their world view of Bush Jnr being a saint.

I can't be sure but knowing Chris I think you missed his point

.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
You should never give powers to a leader you like that you’d hate to have given to a leader you fear

CITIZEN

Monday, February 13, 2006 11:11 AM

Horses for course really DT, I don't consider Fox news a credible resource. MSNBC I can't really judge, since I don't really watch it, I tend to steer clear of mainstream American media because I find it just a little too sensationalist and too willing to tell me what to think rather than simply presenting the facts. In that way I find it a lot like British tabloid news (which, judging by the fact most people read papers like the Sun, I shudder to add is probably our mainstream too ).

The guardian news paper's okay, can't really speak for the New York Times, I've never read it, though I know enough to know it's a quite respected paper, so I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt given no other evidence.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
You should never give powers to a leader you like that you’d hate to have given to a leader you fear

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE