well, I didn't post it for its literary merit. I found some of the facts interesting, even shocking ::shrug:: You don't think that there is an appearance there that major corporations are running the government?
Dana Andy Ousterhout writes: > I don't find it necessarily questionable. I just don't understand what they > are trying to say. They can't seem to focus on any 1 or 2 points nor do > they include any form of summary. Nor do they form a conclusion. So I just > don't know what to make of it. Even if everything they say is true, and I > have no reason to disagree with their "facts", the piece is still > meaningless without some broader context to place it in. And the title has > little to do with the content. > > Andy > > -----Original Message----- > From: Dana Tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2003 6:01 PM > To: CF-Community > Subject: Re: it's not about the oil > > > <g> don't you think some of it sticks? Just curious. Granted, yes, it is a > fast pass through too much stuff and some of the sources would be > questionable to someone on the right (Greenpeace for example), it is at > least highly suggestive and so far what I have tried to verify does verify. > > Dana > > Andy Ousterhout writes: > > > Dana, > > > > You can do better than this. Rambling, interesting, but basically a > > meaningless bitch session. .Doesn't the author believe in a thesis > statement > > and an organized discussion that drives to some point? Any point. Heck, > pick > > 2-3 points and then connect them. > > > > It appears that the author is just throwing facts up against the wall and > > hoping that something sticks. For example.... > > > > "A 1997 prepared by an Oak Ridge analyst for the Department of Energy > > estimated the 1996 military cost of defending oil supplies in the Middle > East > > range -- in peacetime -- at $32 billion. (Patricia Hu) The cost of war in > Iraq > > has been estimated at $50 to $100 billion, paid largely by the American > > taxpayer, unlike the first Gulf War where America had significant help > from > > allies. "This time we'll probably pay 80 to 90 percent of the cost of the > war > > ourselves," said Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution." > > > > So what's the net of this? Break even in 2-3 years? If so, this is a > good > > investment. Ok, how about ... > > > > "CEOs in general receive huge performance bonuses for cutting jobs, > despite > > declining shareholder returns. Their pay has also increased much faster > than > > that of the average worker. (LA Times) > > Shell Oil meanwhile approved a pay package that gives senior executives > > shares worth double their salaries, after recently announcing 650 job > losses > > in the UK alone.(BBC) Worldwide 4,300 job cuts are planned due to > declining > > profits. (Business Times)" > > > > This has nothing to due with Iraq or Bush and everything to do with > corporate > > pay, which, if my memory serves me right started before the current > > administration. Then he/she moves on to ... > > > > "The most notorious tax rebate was received by CSX, until recently > headed by > > the President's nominee for Secretary of the Treasury, John Snow. In the > last > > 4 years, CSX reported U.S. profits of $934 billion, and they paid zero in > U.S. > > corporate taxes. In fact, they received rebates of $164 billion. In 1960, > > corporations paid 23 percent of all Federal tax revenues. Last year, that > > dropped to 9.5 percent, less than half of the share that corporations paid > 40 > > years ago. (Sen. Mark Dayton)" > > > > Isn't CSX a transportation company? What do they have to due with Iraq? > Oil? > > Who set the tax policies that governed CSX's taxes last year? What does > this > > have to do with Bush? > > > > "And they are such good citizens anyway...." > > For gods sake, where the H E double hockey stick is he/she going with > > this????? Oil companies bad? Ok, add Steel companies bad, meat packing > > companies bad, restaurants bad, farms bad. Not disagreeing with idea that > > corporations should be good citizens, I just don't see how everything ties > > together and what he/she recommends. It is easy to bitch, hard to solve. > > > > "Well, we meant well...." > > How many Iraq's died each year under Saddam? Give us a comparison. And > what > > does this have to due with Corporate tax rates, executive pay or the > military > > cost of defending oil reserves or the overall cost of the war? > > Again, Dana, you have proven yourself to be a much more persuasive and > factual > > debater to pass this trash around. > > > > > > Hope everyone is enjoying or for you across the pond has enjoyed their > Sunday. > > > > Andy > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Dana Tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2003 1:11 AM > > To: CF-Community > > Subject: it's not abou the oil > > > > > > http://210.50.193.224/Untitled-1.html > > > > -- > > Mr Jones and me > > We're stumbling through the barrio.... > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=5 Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
