Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
How is this crony capitalism?
Immelt cozies up to Obama, supports and helps to push his policies so as to get preferred statis for any contracts to be doled out by the administration over any other company that might provide the same service or product. It's very simple, GE stands to make billions off of Cap & Trade and Obama's EPA can implement these policies without congresss approval it's not the free market, and its part of whats wrong with our BIG government too much power.
So I am sure you had the same problem as when Cheney held secret meetings with Oil companies..right?
Americans are utopian moralists, who press hard to institutionalize virtue, to destroy evil people, and eliminate wicked institutions and practices, Seymour Martin Lipset wrote in the late 1990s, citing polls showing that An astounding 98% of young Americans have reported being proud of their nationality...75% of adult Americans continue to say they are proud to be Americans. The corresponding percentages for other countries are...Britain 54%, West Germany 20% and France 35%.
Read more at the Washington Examiner: Why we love Reagan, JFK, but not Carter, Nixon | Noemie Emery | Op Eds | Washington Examiner
Exceptionalism American-style began in 1630, 136 years before the American nation, in the words of John Winthrop, that He hath taken us to be His, after a most strict and particular manner, which will make him more jealous of our love and obedience...we must consider that we shall be as a city upon a hill...so that if we deal falsely with our God in this work we have undertaken and so cause Him to withdraw His present help from us, we shall be made a story and a by-word throughout the world.
1. United States National Debt as of September 30, 1980 (Reagan assuming office in January 1981). 907.7 Billion Dollars.
2. United States National Debt as of September 30, 1988 (Bush assuming office in January 1990). 2,602 Billion Dollars.
3. United States National Debt as of September 30, 1992 (Clinton assuming office in January 1993). 4,064 Billion Dollars.
4. 243 Marines killed in Lebanon after the Ronnie ignored Joint Chiefs of Staff. He then did a cut and run.
5. Lied about "Arms For Hostages".
6. Support Iraqi Dictator Saddam Hussein, after sending Rummy to make a handshake deal. This support included the technology used by Saddam to develope Mustand Gas used against Iraqi Kurds.
7. Lies about Iran/Contra.
8. In charge on of the most morally corrupt administrations in U.S. History.
9. Suffered from alzheimer's well into his second term.
10. "Catsup is a vegetable".
Great Man my ass.
Lying, low life, crap eating P.O.S.
The Rectum lacked the necessary qualifications to be called an Intelligent Form.
Immelt cozies up to Obama, supports and helps to push his policies so as to get preferred statis for any contracts to be doled out by the administration over any other company that might provide the same service or product. It's very simple, GE stands to make billions off of Cap & Trade and Obama's EPA can implement these policies without congresss approval it's not the free market, and its part of whats wrong with our BIG government too much power.
So I am sure you had the same problem as when Cheney held secret meetings with Oil companies..right?
Nope because there is ZERO evidence that any oil company received any government benefit from those meetings. They were held sans press coverage so that the participants could speak freely in a brain storming session. The execs were called in to provide training and input for the Administration in advance of developing an energy policy which frankly sucked and none of the oil companies liked.
And you do know that Halliburton is not an oil company yes?
So I am sure you had the same problem as when Cheney held secret meetings with Oil companies..right?
Nope because there is ZERO evidence that any oil company received any government benefit from those meetings. They were held sans press coverage so that the participants could speak freely in a brain storming session. The execs were called in to provide training and input for the Administration in advance of developing an energy policy which frankly sucked and none of the oil companies liked.
And you do know that Halliburton is not an oil company yes?
You're kidding right?
During the Bush Administration, Oil Companies, made more profit then any other commercial enterprise at any time during human history..combined.
It's completely ludicrious to come up with the notion there wasn't any connection.
So I am sure you had the same problem as when Cheney held secret meetings with Oil companies..right?
Nope because there is ZERO evidence that any oil company received any government benefit from those meetings. They were held sans press coverage so that the participants could speak freely in a brain storming session. The execs were called in to provide training and input for the Administration in advance of developing an energy policy which frankly sucked and none of the oil companies liked.
And you do know that Halliburton is not an oil company yes?
You're kidding right?
During the Bush Administration, Oil Companies, made more profit then any other commercial enterprise at any time during human history..combined.
It's completely ludicrious to come up with the notion there wasn't any connection.
More important, back in early 2001, the initial Baker-CFR report (another participant tipped me) was handed directly to Vice President Dick Cheney. Cheney met secretly with CFR task force members (including Ken Lay) to go over the maps of Iraq's oil fields. That, apparently, sealed it. Cheney took the CFR/Baker recommendations as his own plan for dissecting Iraq, I'm told, beginning with the none-too-thinly-veiled take-out-Saddam "assessment."
And whose plan was it? I knew the membership of the Baker-CFR group was Big Oil and its retainers. But I was curious to know who put up the cash for drafting the extravagant report that was so protective of OPEC and Saudi interests. This document was, after all, the outline on which the Bush administration drew its grand design for energy, from Iraq to California to Venezuela. According to Jaffe, the cost of this exercise in Imperialism Lite was funded by "the generous support of Khalid al-Turki" of Saudi Arabia.
Nope because there is ZERO evidence that any oil company received any government benefit from those meetings. They were held sans press coverage so that the participants could speak freely in a brain storming session. The execs were called in to provide training and input for the Administration in advance of developing an energy policy which frankly sucked and none of the oil companies liked.
And you do know that Halliburton is not an oil company yes?
You're kidding right?
During the Bush Administration, Oil Companies, made more profit then any other commercial enterprise at any time during human history..combined.
It's completely ludicrious to come up with the notion there wasn't any connection.
A lot of us did very well in the Bush administration. I personally was very much in favor of an oil-friendly Administration because it meant more opportunity, choices, options, and prosperity for all of us. I happen to know however, that the Oil Companies were NOT happy with a number of the Bush policies including parts of his energy policy.
And again. Halliburton is not an oil company.
Sources gentlemen? I'm sure your quotations are from objective, non partisan sources, but let's see them just to keep things above board here.
Sources gentlemen? I'm sure your quotations are from objective, non partisan sources, but let's see them just to keep things above board here.
Sources gentlemen? I'm sure your quotations are from objective, non partisan sources, but let's see them just to keep things above board here.
First you admit I was right..then want sources?
For..what, exactly?
Sources gentlemen? I'm sure your quotations are from objective, non partisan sources, but let's see them just to keep things above board here.
The source is a book called "Armed Madhouse", whose author is Greg Palast. Read it yourself if you want to determine its credibility. I'm not interested in your opinion of the source.
That's correct. Your opinion is completely irrelevant to me.
FACTS are what matter.
That's correct. Your opinion is completely irrelevant to me.
FACTS are what matter.
Oh for me too. Which is why I don't think I would look to Greg Palast, darling of Air America and the left and who is getting rich with his Greg Palast Investigative Fund - who I don't believe has ever written anything complimentary about anybody on the right nor 'investigated' anybody on the left - I don't think I would look to him for believable 'facts' unless strongly counter balanced with a more objective source.
But you don't care about my opinion and that's cool. I'm just setting the record as straight as I can here in case people who REALLY care about facts are reading along.
Tip O'Neill (Majority Leader, House of Representatives)"He only works three to three and a half hours a day. He doesn't do his homework. He doesn't read his briefing papers. It's sinful that this man is President of the United States."
-- Tip O'Neill exasperated after meeting with Reagan, 31 Oct 1983
"If we told Reagan to walk outside, turn around three times, pick up an acorn and throw it out into the crowd, we'd be lucky to get a question from him asking, 'Why?' "
-- Unnamed White House source on Reagan's personality.
"Poor dear, there's nothing between his ears."
-- British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, New York Times article after a Moscow summit (6/2/88)
"I don't think he's read the report in detail. It's five-and-a-half pages, double-spaced."
-- Larry Speakes (former acting spokesman for the White House under President Ronald Reagan) explaining why Reagan didn't know about a recent truck bombing in Beirut. 5 Oct 1984
"There are times when you really need him to do some work, and all he wants to do is tell stories about his movie days."
-- Anonymous White House aide. 31 Aug 1980
"He knows less about the budget than any president in my lifetime. He can't even carry on a conversation about the budget. It's an absolute and utter disgrace."
-- House Speaker Tip O'Neill after a meeting with Reagan. 23 Nov 1980
"An amiable dunce."
-- Clark Gifford (former Defense Secretary)
"... that incoherent cretin."
-- Andre Faulds (British Labour Party member), discussing Reagan in Parliament.
"Mr. Reagan's ignorance about the Soviet Union and his air-headed rhetoric on the issues of foreign policy and arms control have reached the limit of tolerance and have become and embarrassment to the US and a danger to world peace."
-- The Chicago Tribune telling the truth in endorsing (!) Reagan for re-election. 28 Oct 1984
"What do you do when your President ignores all the palpable, relevant facts and wanders in circles?"
-- David Stockman (ex Reagan Cabinet member), explaining what briefings with Reagan were like. 12 April 1986
"When you meet the President you ask yourself, 'How did it ever occur to anyone that he should be Governor, much less President?' "
-- Henry Kissenger expressing his thoughts to a group of scholars at the Library of Congress. 18 April 1986
"His answers to any questions about young men being killed for some vague and perhaps non-existent reason in Central America has been to smile, nod, wave a hand and walk on. And America applauds, thus proving that senility is a communicable disease."
-- Columnist Jimmy Breslin
"Stupefyingly incredible."
-- British Labour Party member Denis Healy's reaction to Reagan "explaining" trading weapons for hostages with Iran. 14 Nov 1986
"If he knew about it, then he has willfully broken the law; if he didn't know about it, then he is failing to do his job. After all, we expect the President to know about the foreign policy activities being run directly out of the White House."
-- Sen. John Glenn concisely summarizing Reagan's complicity in Iran-Contra. 25 Nov 1986
"So shockingly dumb that by his very presence in the office he numbs an entire country."
-- Columnist Jimmy Breslin
http://www.myfreedompost.com/2009/05/my-favorite-all-time-ronald-reagan.html
So I am sure you had the same problem as when Cheney held secret meetings with Oil companies..right?
Nope because there is ZERO evidence that any oil company received any government benefit from those meetings. They were held sans press coverage so that the participants could speak freely in a brain storming session. The execs were called in to provide training and input for the Administration in advance of developing an energy policy which frankly sucked and none of the oil companies liked.
And you do know that Halliburton is not an oil company yes?
You're kidding right?
During the Bush Administration, Oil Companies, made more profit then any other commercial enterprise at any time during human history..combined.
It's completely ludicrious to come up with the notion there wasn't any connection.
Sources gentlemen? I'm sure your quotations are from objective, non partisan sources, but let's see them just to keep things above board here.
First you admit I was right..then want sources?
For..what, exactly?
So she can attack the source instead of addressing the substance
Just like she keeps insisting that Halliburton is not an oil company, even though she knows it services the oil industry and benefits from policies that are "pro-oil"
