Halliburton--still raking in the blood money

My tummy hurts.

Jesus.

So, Halliburton is making a TON of cash. That's what companies are supposed to do.

Good for them.

Unless, of course, they are real estate deals in Arkansas. Then, we devote millions of taxpayer dollars to try and find evidence of possible collusion.

Yeah, by hook or by crook, anything that rakes in the dough must be a good thing.

That's why I'm going to start offering to take peoples' trash to the dump for them. Four loads at 5 dollars each, minus the $15 dumping fees, leaves $5 profit for me. Hooray!

Or better yet, I'll just keep the $20 and dump the truckloads of garbage on Grifter's lawn. He won't mind! After all, my company is making not just money, but MORE money. Surely he'll understand it's what my company is supposed to do and he'll stand there smiling amidst the shit and the flies, saluting my entrepenuerialism.

What is wrong with you, Grifter? Do you not understand the concept of professional ethics at all?

edited to remove a mystery'O'

Or French oil companies.

I have found that ethics are usually a concept governed by who is running the situation. (or more appropriatly, by who is not running it and has a problem with "losing")

Is there a "right" or a "wrong". Sure. Often times there is. But that does not matter.

You actually had a GREAT idea with the garbage thing. And there would be nothing wrong with me, charging the same people $3 per load, taking your clients from you, having even more clients, and dumping on your lawn. That would possibly provide me with enough total clients to offer some of them free service if they were willing to sit at the end of my road, and keep you from coming anywhere near my place.

So, now you've lost your clients, your business, and your vengeance, and I've still got clients to dump on your lawn.

Good example, but sometimes it's cheaper to do business right, and pay the $15 and keep the $5.

When it's not cheaper is when you can pay $25 million/year to dump medical waste, in an approved facility, or get fined $100,000 when you are caught dumping it at sea.

Let's see, $25million/year or $100,000 every time you get caught.

With the 20+ million you will save, you can buy one hell of a boat, to take it even farther out to sea, to have an even lesser chance of getting caught.

It's got nothing to do with what is "wrong with me." It's all about HOW THE WORLD WORKS. You can wish to change it all you would like, you can even expend great amounts of effort to do so, and may EVEN be able to.

In the meantime, if you are going to have to play the game, play it better than the next guy.

I guess that's what's wrong with me. I play to win, not to showcase my emotions and change the world.

At this point, is there even a reason to get up in arms by what Grifter says. We know he has no ethics and the ends always justifies the means. Got it. Noted.

Once you accept that, better to just disregard him if you disagree.

Way ahead of you, mikah.

Fair enough.

As I disregard all the rantings of "this isn't right, this is mean, play nice...."

And then The other guy gives me a one time $2000 fee to kill you, then he gets all the business and can raise his prices through the roof. Later, people who are sick of people like you, who would rather do business through actively practicing deceit, stealing from people's pensions, destroying lives and the environment around us, hire me to sink the even bigger boat that dumps shit in the sea even farther out where no one can see them.

Um, right.

You can always just hit "Reset" on your Playstation. That should put your reality right back to where you are comfortable with.

Quick question: You're the same guy up above that thinks that you "possibly" could exchange garbage disposal service in return for people agreeing to become security guards in your employ, right?

I'm just carrying out your position to the next level. Might makes right and the ability to get away with it means its ok, right. Well, then the next guy who wants to collect and dump trash, but doesn't feel like competing through offering better, cheaper service to drive you out of business, he can just hire someone to kill you.

And it's prefectly ok to you, right?

Not really, no. It was a screwed up response to a screwed up scenario.

(However, the barter system is still alive and well, come to think of it, I'm sure something could be worked out. Let's see. You get a contract to dump the trash for ABC Security. You mention, "Hey, your trash is free, if you get some of your guys to take care of this for me." Say those guys make $8.00/hour, 56 hour's/week, 3 guys for 24 hour coverage. That's right at $70K per year for 24 hour protection. Now, say your contract for hauling his garbage is $15/ton, and he produces 5000 tons of garbage/year. It's a good deal for both of you, and guess what, everyone is happy)

That exact scenario, right down to the industry, is commonly referred to as "The Mob". It seems to work ok for them.

That exact scenario, right down to the industry, is commonly referred to as "The Mob". It seems to work ok for them.</strong>[/QUOTE]

Yah, worked really well. Didn't Capone die of syphilus after spending over 10 years in Alcatraz?

Okay, I'm trying to play catch-up. Is Grifter advocating organized crime tactics in business, or does he just admire their can-do attitude?

You get the door prize Jacob.

I admire the attitude.

If you "play harder/smarter/better" than the next guy, you usually win. That's all.

Oh, right. You're a stockbrocker, aren't you?

This explains a great deal.

I am, and it does.

Grifter, man, you scare me some times!

You know what the problem is?

First of all, your concept of "that's the way the world works" means nothing. That's the way the world works for as long you remain apathetic and don't pressure those with some power -that means the government- to change things.

And secondly -and most importantly- Your problem is that you fail to realise that you're one of the little guys. You are a part of the mass that gets screwed by those you seem to admire that much.

I am?

How's that?

If you are the CEO of Halliburton, I humbly take that back.

If you are a middle class citizen who has to pay for the war in Iraq and the military budget increase, while the economy is dangerously close to a recession, you're a little guy.

Even if you are the owner of a mid-level business, which can be easily driven to bankruptcy by one of the unscrupulous business behemoths you admire, you're a little guy.

Wonderful.... another thread that's disintegrated into everyone expressing outrage at what a ethics-free scumbag Grifter is.

Clarence, does this mean I'm off your Christmas Card list?

This is very simple.

I, personally, am an individual founded in ethics. For what it's worth. In my personal, daily life, in everything I choose to do, I am an ethical person. To the point that I have several times put my own employment on the line to stand up for "what is right".

I am also a realist, and not naive enough to think just because I try to do the right thing, does not mean everyone else will.

With that reality in mind, I am able to "play the game" when necessary to excel in business, just because I understand it.

Does that make me a hypocritical scumbag? Maybe. Do I care? Nope.

You always, always try and do the right thing. It's that simple.

IF that fails, you had better be able to play hardball. That way you can still be standing when it's over, and AGAIN, try to perpetuate "the right thing."

Sure, this is an "ends justify the means" approach, again. Just keep in mind that it's effective. I'm sure even some of the serious haters of my tactics would have to see some truth in this.

Well, since this thread's thoroughly derailed, I'll simply ask this:

Griff, how do you type that you're "grounded in ethics" with a straight face when all you do here is applaud UNethical actions from the likes of our current government and Halliburton?

Does not compute.

Fellow geeks, let us remember our Trek:

"I've always held a sneaking admiration for this one."
"He was the best of the tyrants and the most dangerous."
"They were supermen in a sense. Stronger, braver, certainly more ambitious, more daring."
"Gentlemen, this romanticism about a ruthless dictator is--"
"Mr. Spock, we humans have a streak of barbarism in us. Appalling, but there, nevertheless."
"There were no massacres under his rule."
"And as little freedom."
"No wars until he was attacked."
"Gentlemen...."
"Mr. Spock, you misunderstand us. We can be against him and admire him all at the same time."
"Illogical."
"Totally."

I'm not that familiar with classic Trek. Was this about Khan?

As you have stated on several occasions Mikah, I applaud the OUTCOME of these actions . Not always the actions themselves.

I do feel, as I stated above, that sometimes these actions need to be taken. So I have no problem with them, because they are understandable.

I also stated that I, personally, when possible, in dealings that I have direct control over, make it a point to act in an ethical manner.

Governments need to govern. Not to share every single scrap of information with every living soul on the planet.

Businesses need to make money. Not to simply appease every living soul on the planet.

If good is ultimatly done as the outcome of these processes, what is the harm? Good is done.

Good for whom?

If the US finds a way to kill all non-US citizens and recolonise the planet, would you agree with that? It would certainly mean that you would be the sole owner of all the planet's resources and you'd never face another external threat again. Would you applaud if someone proposed that?

If the corporation you have major stock invstements on did what was written a few posts before and virtually eliminated the competition, through the good ol' "bullet through the head" method, would you be a happy bunny? Your stocks would soar!

On the other hand, if someone does the same but you're not on the winning side, how would you feel? Shouldn't there be something to protect you? Laws, ethics, call it whatever you want? A world in which you have free reign to screw others is also a world in which others have free reign to screw you.

Finally, since you are of the opinion that the end justifies the means, do you agree with terrorist methods? That's the philosophy of Al Quaeda as well, I think.

I just discovered the problem with understanding these concepts here. There is no accounting for realism.

You are all saying: "What if... What if.... What if..."

Well, What if the polar ice caps melt and we all die anyway? What if we get an asteroid the size of Belize that hits the Gulf of Mexico, and we all die anyway?

These are nonsensical arguments!!!

Nonsensical. This is a scenario that WOULD NEVER HAPPEN, so what's the point in even throwing it out there?

Again, this IS NOT the way the world works. Nonsensical.

This is the lamest of all.

Terrorism DOES NOT work. There has never been a political "change" due to terrorist acts.

I don't play WHAT IF. WHAT IF is a nonsensical waste of time and energy.

I play, THIS IS THE SCENARIO, or POTENTIAL SCENARIO, based on sound analysis, now how should it be dealt with.

Or if you do think of "What if" scenarios, at least make them plausible.

The United States Of America, 2001-

WHAT????????????

What is happening on a daily basis now is a Political REACTION!!!!! Not a change.

What policy has been changed TO GIVE TERRORISTS WHAT THEY WANT?

None. Not one. Ever.

That is what terrorism is all about.

"We disagree with this/that, we want you to do/not do this, so we are going to commit acts of terrorism until you do."

NEVER has that resulted in any terrorist organization getting what they are asking for.

A conservative turn in US politics and society. The Patriot Act. Human rights violations, i.e. Guantanamo. The increase of the military budget. The pre-emptive strike doctrine. The official adoption of the Project for a New American Century. Attacking Iraq wihout proper justification.

All these are the result of 9/11 and all these lead to an America that's less free and alienated from the rest of the world. And, believe me, that's exactly what Al Quaeda wants. A US that's isolated and no longer viewed as a force for good.

And perhaps more importantly for you, 9/11 succeeded in making Americans live in fear. Isn't that a major goal of terrorism?

We still support Israel. We still have troops in the middle east. ETC...

These are the "demands" that have been made by terrorists in the past.

Personally, I do not live in fear. I live in awareness.

You can step out to get the newspaper and get hit by a bus. I do not fear busses.

Terrorism is a state of mind. If you allow yourself into that state of mind, then perhaps I will agree with you totally. They "win".

That has not been the collective response to the events.

The main collective response has been a bonding of Americans for America. An unparalleled support.

I would venture to guess, that is the exact opposite of what they wanted.

</strong>

Halliburton NEEDS to make money illegally (violating UN sanctions which the US, as a UN member, is bound to act under)? Our government NEEDS to lie to us in order to assassinate a leader who they already had a (publically-known) standing CIA assassination order out for for years?

I think your definition of "need" is pretty much whatever serves my interests is something I "need," no matter the impact on others.

Hence, you are unethical and support unethical actions.

Good for whom? Besides Halliburton and its supporters, who is benefiting from their duplicity? No one. Who benefitted from us making up lies to go to war?

The nearly 200 American casualties?
The dozens of British soldiers killed?
The untold numbers of Iraqi casualties, both military and civilian?
The US economy which continues to sit in the dumps?
The millions of Americans affected by the economic downturn?
The Iraqi people, who still aren't free, being fed properly, nor are they happy to STILL have us in their country?

Again....your ethical limitations stretch as far as the person initiating the unethical act (Halliburton, our government) As long as that entity gets what it wants (the ends), then the means are justified, and therefore you cannot claim to be the least bit ethical.

Your ethics are simply ethics of convenience, with a million exceptions and loopholes to allow any atrocity to be pardoned as long as its outcome can be spun "positively."

The dictionary definition of terrorism is;

"the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion"

Therefore you might want to consider the following as successful uses of terrorism

Roman Emperor Tiberius
The Spanish Inquisition
Robespierre
The Mujahedeen
The WWII Resistence Movement
The Israeli terrorist campaign against the British by such as Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamin
The fight for the independence of Algeria

You might also want to consider reading some books before making blanket statements.

And others may want to consider that there are more than one side to issues, and possibly neither of them may be correct.

As to your other well researched issues of terrorism, none of them relate to "modern terrorism", which I assumed was the topic.

Mikah, you suprised me above.

I never said anything about businesses NEEDING to make money ILLEGALLY. Simply to make money. What I stated earlier was that sometimes it is cheaper for a company to break the rules. That is a function of the rules, not of the company. The act of doing so simply makes good business sense at the bottom line.

As for governments NEEDING to lie to us. I also stated that governments needed to govern, not to lie. Again, it is a function of the environment. If you can tell everything, in detail, to the masses, and not have that used to someone else's advantage, then you should. If you can not, then some things should not be told.

I never presented any sides to the issue. You stated that terrorism had never achieved anything. I merely provided examples where it clearly had. Whether those achievements are worthy or desireable is irrelevant to that discussion.

As for the assumption of modern terrorism only? Well you know what they say what you do when you assume don't you?

Besides Algeria is a pretty modern example.

Or how do you define modern?
Only by whom Bush decides is a terrorist?

Does anyone else see the irony here? You say it's good business sense for a company to break the law - law established by THE GOVERNMENT - if it's "cheaper" for them (which is always) and then you say the government should do what's neccesary - even lie - to govern (i.e. upholding the laws that the company is breaking).

I guess life should just be a battle of the liars, and whoever makes the most money wins.

Oddly enough, tho, lying about starting wars with other countries has nothing to do with governing anything.

Mikah, please think through your argument.

That means that until the RULES are changed, this will continue to happen. As it stands, it is cheaper to break the rules. So companies break the rules. If the rules are changed, the business model will change. Granted, that is a FUNCTION of the government, who makes the rules. This is an obvious shortfall and mistake on the governments part. If you want this to stop, CHANGE the rules, or at least put some teeth in it. But don't sit on a high horse and throw shit at a company, just for following the bottom line. I've never once heard a CEO say, "well, we are flat broke, and we are closing the doors tomorrow and laying off tens of thousands of people, BUT, DAMNIT, we did the right thing, so it's alright."

As for lying, again, it goes back to security. Let's see, "This is matter of National Security for the American People, so I, as the President, want you all to know that over 85% of our Nations water supply is totally unguarded, and is not regularly tested to see if it contains pathogens. Right now, there is no fix for this, so I just wanted to let you know, since you asked."

Yup, that's a MUCH better idea than, "The government is doing everything possible to protect the water supply of the Nation from attack."

Is the second one a lie? NO, it's not. However I would guarantee that if a water supply got poisoned, there would be someone shouting, "you said it was protected!!! We are poisoned!! You LIED!!!"

That basically amounts to what is going on now with the whole Iraq thing.

Everyone is latching onto the WMD issue and saying "Bush LIED!!!" Guess what, I watched EVERY SINGLE SPEECH, were WMD listed as a reason? Of course. Were OTHER THINGS listed as well? YES!!!!

So, well OTHER THINGS have come to fruition, but that does not matter. He still lied. Ok, right. If you have to find something to bitch about, then you can use your same twisted logic to say that a mother lies every time she says her baby is the prettiest. Talk about irony.

I am confused. No, actually I'm being ironic.

Weren't the WMDs and the alleged Al Quaeda connections the reasons for national security that "justified" the invasion and occupation of Iraq?

How could "Iraqi liberty" (which by the way hasn't happened. Regime change is what happened) be a question of national security for the US?

i do like the logic of "if the company breaks the rules then change the rules"

If only all things were so simple.

break the law?
well just change it then.

And lying to justify a war in which your election backers get all the big contracts is not justified in the interests of national security.

It was justified in the interests of job security.

His job to be specific.

</strong>

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!

So, now it's on the government to change rules so that corporations achieve maximum profitablity and benefit no matter how illegal or immoral? Perhaps next the law can stop interfering with those armed robbers trying to enrich their "bottom line" by killing convenience store merchants?

That's what I kinda like about you. You make NO effort to hide your lack of morals or ethics. Well done.

</strong>

Actually, it is a lie, but I can understand you not realizing this. You think lying to cover bombing a poverty-stricken country that can't put up any decent fight, fire any weapons at American soil, nor is even united amongst its own people is in the interests of national security, so naturally this would confuse you.

That's...actually not ironic at all, but I digress.

What other things came to fruition? Every reason rang false:

- We didn't do it as part of the UN to enforce a resolution
- We never found an Al-Queda link
- We never found WMD, even though we said we knew where they were. Now, we're looking for evidence, which we supposedly had beforehand and then couldn't show in the interest of "national security."

ALL lies. None of the reasons came to fruition. And now you say that calling a liar a liar - even you are admitting that he lied - is somehow twisted logic. I'm starting to enjoy your rantings.

When you were just immoral, you were boring, but now that you're delusional, you're rather entertaining.

Ok, we'll take this slow, so everyone can keep up......

In referring to the original example I gave:

Well, how about RAISING the fine to $25 million every time you get caught? Then it would be better for the bottom line to follow the rules. You have removed the loophole. As I stated, this is an oversight of the government, and needs to be corrected. Until such time as it is corrected, then immoral or not, business WILL do it. I never said it was right, I stated that's what is done.

As for this being a lie, lets look at this LOGICALlY as well.

Well use easy numbers. Let's say there are 1000 water supplies. Lets say there are 100 people to protect them. That leaves, at any given time, 900 unsecured. So, "the government is doing everything possible to protect the water supply" is, in no way, shape, or form, a lie.

Glad to be entertaining again, by the way. I hate boring.

Grifter, not every company that pollutes or breaks a rule is a huge conglomerate that can pay a 25 million dollar fine. The exhibit group I work for is a fairly small company, but we have to dispose of our toxic wastes in a legal fashion, and we comply with the rules, not just because we want to avoid the fines, but BECAUSE IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO.

You just assume that all businesses are evil, bottom-line-only, corrupt organizations which exist only to rape the country of as much money and resources as possible, no matter the ethics involved. Just because YOU would run a company that way doesn't mean that's the way they all are.

</strong>

Actually, you were cheering on Halliburton "making money." It's not an oversight on the government's part to have a standard fine for dumping rather than tailoring every fine arbitrarily. Fining a company their gross income for a year for ONE infraction is a useless idea that will do nothing but bankrupt companies and destroy an economy, as rivals will fall over each other trying to plant evidence of an infraction so that the government will step in and all but put their competitor out of business.

</strong>

It is if you have the capacity to hire 900 more, which we do.

This one was kind of dull. Say something else more out of touch with reality with your next response.

AAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!

Where do you even come up with this shit???????????????????? God, my head is splitting!!!!

Who ever said anything about fining a company their gross profits? WTF????

LOOK AT THE EXAMPLE!!!!

I did not throw out $25 million AS THE FIGURE IT SHOULD BE!!!! I simply put it out as a comparison!!!!!

Please, please, please NOTE: If a company had to pay x to do something the right way, and was only forced to pay y (y being considerably smaller than x, mind you) to do something the wrong way, then it MAKES SENSE to do it the wrong way.

If the fine were raised to x, and you would have to pay that amount anyway, then it would make sense to do it the right way!

I NEVER SAID THIS WAS RIGHT, OR MORAL, OR THE WAY I WOULD RUN IT!!!!!!! I SAID THIS IS JUST THE WAY IT IS!!!!!! WHY IS THAT SO HARD?

As for the second argument, I'm not even addressing it any more. To you, the government is full of evil liars. To me, it's a necessary evil. Tired of beating the dead horse for an argument that neither of us will yeild on.

It only MAKES SENSE if the company has NO ETHICS.

You're almost Devin-like in your cynicism towards businesses being ethical, but you think that the government is made up of much more responsible and noble people, even though they come from the same backgrounds and have the same connections? Please.