The Many Faces of US Politics...

[give her dixie]

ABUJA (Reuters) - Nigeria's anti-corruption agency said on Friday it had dropped bribery charges against former U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney and oil services company Halliburton after the company agreed to pay a fine.

"It was formally dropped today," Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) spokesman Femi Babafemi said. He said the Nigerian government had agreed to an offer made by Halliburton to pay fines totaling up to $250 million.

Halliburton, which has said the Nigerian charges have no legal basis, confirmed that they were dropped but declined additional comment.

The EFCC said it received the offer when it met with officials representing Cheney and Halliburton in London last week after filing 16-count charges at a federal high court in Abuja in a case dating back to the mid-1990s.

Cheney served as U.S. vice president under George W. Bush from 2001 to 2009.

Houston-based engineering firm KBR, a former Halliburton unit, pleaded guilty last year to U.S. charges that it paid $180 million in bribes between 1994 and 2004 to Nigerian officials to secure $6 billion in contracts for the Bonny Island liquefied natural gas (LNG) project in the Niger Delta.

KBR and Halliburton reached a $579 million settlement in the United States. But Nigeria, France and Switzerland have conducted their own investigations into the case.

The EFCC last week charged Halliburton Chief Executive David Lesar, Cheney, and two other executives. It also filed charges against Halliburton as a company, which was headed by Cheney during the 1990s, and four associated businesses.

Halliburton split from KBR in 2007. It has said that its current operations in Nigeria -- raided by the EFCC last month -- were not involved in the Bonny project and that there is no legal basis for the charges.

Babafemi said although the investigation into Halliburton was over, the EFCC was still pursuing a case against a number of Nigerians who it says accepted bribes from the U.S. firm.

Shares of Halliburton fell 31 cents, or less than 1 percent, to $39.96 in afternoon trading on the New York Stock Exchange.

[give her dixie]

The US House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved the $725 billion military appropriations bill for 2011, by far the largest single military spending bill in the history of mankind.

The 341-48 vote saw vast majorities of both parties supporting it, and was referred to by officials as a "stripped down" version, despite its impossibly large pricetag. In addition to its budget busting expense, the bill also solidified the ban on closing the detention center at Guantanamo Bay.

The bill now moves on to the lame duck Senate, where it is expected to face at least some resistance around the Gitmo ban and a scramble to even have a vote in the waning days before it goes into recess.

Some officials expressed disappointment with the $725 billion in spending, not because it was so much, but because it actually didn't include every major expense people were hoping to shoehorn into it. In that regard, it seems the Obama Administration may be facing the prospect of an "emergency" appropriation bill at some point next year that will push the already record bill even closer to a trillion dollars.

[tyssam5]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101127/ap_on_re_us/us_portland_car_bomb_plot

Religion of Peace at it again 

http://www.salem-news.com/articles/december132008/bill_hakim_12-13-08.php

We also have Christian 'conservatives' up in Oregon who need watched.

Pray tell you're not comparing a botched bank Robbery with a Muslim terrorist going after collateral damage
of what could only be young families at a Christmas tree lighting ceremony...and all in the name of Allah 
* but while you're at it...please do explain the Christian 'Conservative' slant to you going back to '08 to find this story

The 'tea-bag terrorists' got the death penalty anyways.

http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2010/12/post_7.html

[thejuice]

God forgive me for bumping this thread up after what went on in the other thread earlier but I was just wondering what people thought of Senator Ron Paul. He seems to be more popular now than ever but is he just telling people what they want to hear.

He wants to abolish the Fed, pull america out of other countries and stop "empire building" (his words) and go for smaller government. He goes against the Republican grain pretty much and seems to be quite consistent as a very strictly constitutional Republican. He said he wanted the USA to spread democracy by "setting a good example instead of using force".

Negatives about him, he's quite old (75) if he wants to run for president. He features on the Alex Jones shows which means he's in such glittering company as David Icke. He also hasn't even decided if he will run for president yet.

Donald Trump recently said at CPAC that Ron Paul will never win a presidential election, make of that what you may.

It just seems to me that the hype starting to build up around him is starting to seem quite familiar to that which we had 4 years ago.

His speech at CPAC:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BWEBXKOkaI

[deiseach]

Ron Paul is a congressman, not a senator. It's his son Rand who is the senator.

He's a kook. No serious economist advocates a return to the gold standard which would lead to unemployment levels of Depression proportions as wages never adjust downwards to reflect the throttling of the money supply. Still, he is a very honest kook. No one can be under any illusions about what a vote for Ron Paul means, in contrast to mainstream politicians who talk about cutting public spending and reducing taxes without affecting the quality of services.

[Tyrones own]

 

THE RESULTS FOR OBAMA'S CASH FOR CLUNKERS DISASTER;

The person who calculated this bit of information has been a professor at The University of West Virginia in Morgantown,  West Virginia for the last forty some years.

A clunker that travels  12,000 miles a year at 15 mpg uses 800 gallons of gas a year.
A vehicle  that travels 12,000 miles a year at 25 mpg uses 480 gallons of gas a  year.
So, the average Cash for Clunkers transaction will reduce gasoline  consumption by 320 gallons per year.
The government claims 700,000 clunkers  have been replaced so that's 224 million gallons saved per year.
That  equates to a bit over 5 million barrels of oil.  5 million barrels is  about 5 hours worth of US consumption.
More importantly, 5 million barrels  of oil at $70 per barrel costs about $350 million dollars.
So, the  government paid $3 billion of our tax dollars to save $350 million.
We  spent $8.57 for every $1.00 we saved.

How do ye like them apples?

I'm pretty sure they'll  do a better job with our health care though...... 

[muppet]

THE RESULTS FOR OBAMA'S CASH FOR CLUNKERS DISASTER;

The person who calculated this bit of information has been a professor at The University of West Virginia in Morgantown,  West Virginia for the last forty some years.

A clunker that travels  12,000 miles a year at 15 mpg uses 800 gallons of gas a year.
A vehicle  that travels 12,000 miles a year at 25 mpg uses 480 gallons of gas a  year.
So, the average Cash for Clunkers transaction will reduce gasoline  consumption by 320 gallons per year.
The government claims 700,000 clunkers  have been replaced so that's 224 million gallons saved per year.
That  equates to a bit over 5 million barrels of oil.  5 million barrels is  about 5 hours worth of US consumption.
More importantly, 5 million barrels  of oil at $70 per barrel costs about $350 million dollars.
So, the  government paid $3 billion of our tax dollars to save $350 million.
We  spent $8.57 for every $1.00 we saved.

How do ye like them apples?

I'm pretty sure they'll  do a better job with our health care though...... 

Only 25mpg?
Oil is over $100 a barrel now and of course gas/petrol costs a hell of a lot more at the pump after refining.
Then there is the (idiotic) carbon credits to be added.

Might be better spending the money giving that professor an education.

[Tyrones own]

THE RESULTS FOR OBAMA'S CASH FOR CLUNKERS DISASTER;

The person who calculated this bit of information has been a professor at The University of West Virginia in Morgantown,  West Virginia for the last forty some years.

A clunker that travels  12,000 miles a year at 15 mpg uses 800 gallons of gas a year.
A vehicle  that travels 12,000 miles a year at 25 mpg uses 480 gallons of gas a  year.
So, the average Cash for Clunkers transaction will reduce gasoline  consumption by 320 gallons per year.
The government claims 700,000 clunkers  have been replaced so that's 224 million gallons saved per year.
That  equates to a bit over 5 million barrels of oil.  5 million barrels is  about 5 hours worth of US consumption.
More importantly, 5 million barrels  of oil at $70 per barrel costs about $350 million dollars.
So, the  government paid $3 billion of our tax dollars to save $350 million.
We  spent $8.57 for every $1.00 we saved.

How do ye like them apples?

I'm pretty sure they'll  do a better job with our health care though...... 

Only 25mpg?
Oil is over $100 a barrel now and of course gas/petrol costs a hell of a lot more at the pump after refining.
Then there is the (idiotic) carbon credits to be added.

Might be better spending the money giving that professor an education.

The dollar signs littered through out that post obviously went
clear out over your head there muppet 

[muppet]

THE RESULTS FOR OBAMA'S CASH FOR CLUNKERS DISASTER;

The person who calculated this bit of information has been a professor at The University of West Virginia in Morgantown,  West Virginia for the last forty some years.

A clunker that travels  12,000 miles a year at 15 mpg uses 800 gallons of gas a year.
A vehicle  that travels 12,000 miles a year at 25 mpg uses 480 gallons of gas a  year.
So, the average Cash for Clunkers transaction will reduce gasoline  consumption by 320 gallons per year.
The government claims 700,000 clunkers  have been replaced so that's 224 million gallons saved per year.
That  equates to a bit over 5 million barrels of oil.  5 million barrels is  about 5 hours worth of US consumption.
More importantly, 5 million barrels  of oil at $70 per barrel costs about $350 million dollars.
So, the  government paid $3 billion of our tax dollars to save $350 million.
We  spent $8.57 for every $1.00 we saved.

How do ye like them apples?

I'm pretty sure they'll  do a better job with our health care though...... 

Only 25mpg?
Oil is over $100 a barrel now and of course gas/petrol costs a hell of a lot more at the pump after refining.
Then there is the (idiotic) carbon credits to be added.

Might be better spending the money giving that professor an education.

The dollar signs littered through out that post obviously went
clear out over your head there muppet 

That post is even funnier with your signature under it.

[Tyrones own]

1) 25mpg is industry standard here
2) ok so we'll go with the barrell of oil at $100
That's 500 million saved instead of 350 million...WOW 
Its still 3 billion spent to save 500 million..right muppet?
3) what has the price of gas at the pump have to do with this idiocy
Of stepping over dollars to pick up pennies

[Groucho]

Is it cos he's black?

[muppet]

1) 25mpg is industry standard here
2) ok so we'll go with the barrell of oil at $100
That's 500 million saved instead of 350 million...WOW 
Its still 3 billion spent to save 500 million..right muppet?
3) what has the price of gas at the pump have to do with this idiocy
Of stepping over dollars to pick up pennies

Because you calculated the total based on the price of oil. No one uses oil. It must be refined first and that costs money therefore the savings are higher again.

As for 25mpg being industry standard, was that the objective? Merely the most inefficient industry standard in the western world? They could have aimed higher.

I don't know anything about Obama's 'clunkers scheme', in fact I never heard of it till I read your post but I can see holes in the figures and that suggests to me someone is telling porkies.

[heganboy]

So whilst I agree with the sentiment from TO that it was a complete nonsense program- the numbers are out...

today's price of gas, 3.14 per g
280m * 3.14= 0.879B USD saved, and only 2.77Bn spent (there's a phrase I like- only 2.77BN)
so closer to 3:1 still not what they would call awesome...

[Tyrones own]

1) 25mpg is industry standard here
2) ok so we'll go with the barrell of oil at $100
That's 500 million saved instead of 350 million...WOW 
Its still 3 billion spent to save 500 million..right muppet?
3) what has the price of gas at the pump have to do with this idiocy
Of stepping over dollars to pick up pennies

Because you calculated the total based on the price of oil. No one uses oil. It must be refined first and that costs money therefore the savings are higher again.

As for 25mpg being industry standard, was that the objective? Merely the most inefficient industry standard in the western world? They could have aimed higher.

I don't know anything about Obama's 'clunkers scheme', in fact I never heard of it till I read your post but I can see holes in the figures and that suggests to me someone is telling porkies.

Sorry not buying that...you were simply caught out trying to be a smart ass
Yet again with limited knowledge of the point being made!

[Tyrones own]

So whilst I agree with the sentiment from TO that it was a complete nonsense program- the numbers are out...

today's price of gas, 3.14 per g
280m * 3.14= 0.879B USD saved, and only 2.77Bn spent (there's a phrase I like- only 2.77BN)
so closer to 3:1 still not what they would call awesome...

Simply put HB, numbers that only the federal government could
Try to hood wink...certainly wouldn't work in my or your office today