Halliburton Moving HQ To Dubai 555
theodp writes "Much-maligned defense contractor Halliburton is moving its corporate headquarters from Houston to Dubai in the United Arab Emirates. Dubai's friendly tax laws will add to Halliburton's bottom line. Last year the company earned $2.3B in profits. Sen. Patrick Leahy called the company's move 'corporate greed at its worst.' Halliburton, once headed by VP Dick Cheney, has been awarded contracts valued at an estimated $25.7B for its work in Iraq."
What are they avoiding (besides paying taxes)? (Score:5, Interesting)
P.S. Remember when Cheney refused to sell his Haliburton stock when appointed VP? He also resisted placing it into a blind trust and if I remember correctly, continues to receive compensation from Haliburton. Also, the content of Cheney's energy task force demonstrated that companies (Haliburton included) had direct input into the official federal energy plan, effectively allowing corporations to dictate US policy.
Re:What are they avoiding (besides paying taxes)? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ninety percent of their business is in the Middle East and Asia. The move just makes business sense. The only ill effect will be a few hundred jobs in Houston lost; not a good thing for those people but all part of business.
For how long? (Score:2)
They will likely use the threat of moving off-shore as a way to get some breaks from Texas.
Re:For how long? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is such a non-story.
Re:For how long? (Score:5, Insightful)
For instance, if there has to be an urgent phone call between a CEO of an oil services company, and the head of a sovereign nation that retains both de facto and de jure control over resources that are increasingly difficult to find across the world, and somebody is going to be inconvenienced by the time -- I don't think it's going to be the emir who's getting woken up at 3AM to talk business unless it's really, really an emergency.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:For how long? (Score:5, Insightful)
Words fail me.
Re:What are they avoiding (besides paying taxes)? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What are they avoiding (besides paying taxes)? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
yes I hope and pray that there are
'cause those liberal freaks go too far..."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
On a larger scale, what's with the idea that a company owes Americans jobs just because they're American? What happened to land of the free and all that jazz?
The fucking populists are overrunning this country, and I don't like it one bit...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Halliburton has a lot inc common with many other major U.S. corporations, who also see nothing wrong with pissing all over their domestic workforce. All that, while simultaneously demanding more and more for less and less from said workforce, dema
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What are they avoiding (besides paying taxes)? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What's the point? No matter
Re:What are they avoiding (besides paying taxes)? (Score:5, Insightful)
I rather doubt we can, in our lifetimes anyway. Countries that are just now entering the level of prosperity that we enjoyed in the second half of the 20th century are quite willing to give tax breaks, look the other way on pollution controls, and in general "care about" companies that open up in otherwise impoverished parts of their countries. Here on the other hand, we have developed a cultural bias against all large companies, while at the same time not doing much to favor small companies either.
If you are a Boeing, you may make the best airplanes, but you have a heavily government subsidized Airbus to go up against. In this particular case of course, Airbus, having nothing to lose but European tax payers money went way out on a limb with some bad technology and now Boeing is seeing the benefit. But several years ago Boeing outlook wasn't so certain, and several years from now (if Airbus gets their act together) that might be the case again. Very rarely though does our government step in to prop up a company that might be in trouble (Chrysler being a counter example), instead letting the chips fall where they may (as with Enron, Worldcom, etc.)
On the other hand, if a company is healthy, there is a public outcry to keep them out of town (Walmart), tax them more, or confiscate their revenues for some worthy cause (as Hillary wants to to do to the other US oil companies). It seems to be often forgotten that these "big greedy companies" are where many of our retirement programs are invested. Yes, Enron was evil (at the top), yes they did bad things, and yes a lot of individuals were hurt when their stock value went to zero. But was the average Enron employee a part of this? Would forcing them all to archive their e-mail for a billion years have prevented it? Doubtful.
Do small companies get treated better? Maybe some do, but the ones I know are being run on a shoestring and nobody working there is getting rich. A dozen man construction company for example is subject to endless regulations, and because they handle millions of dollars in materials, even though the employees may be making a low hourly wage, they are not treated like a "small business". Doctors and Dentists in America used to be thought of as small businesses too, and that's the way they operated. But our legal system has changed all that. Now even the smallest country doctor needs a staff to keep track of paperwork, billing though various government agencies, and of course responding to litigation issues.
Our media has focused on the fact that many large companies are being run by executives that are millionaires, and who continue to make millions every year, often after poor performance. But this isn't true of the vast majority of businesses and we've lost sight of the fact that the REAL value of the company (almost any company) is is the hundreds (or thousands) of employees making a living wage, as well as stockholders (pensioners) just like you and me. Socialist countries (I include most of Europe) have awakened to the need to keep these companies happy, just as we (Americans) have started to find every reason imaginable to make such companies feel unwelcome.
I don't think for a minute that most big companies "care" about their employees, other than on a competitive level, where they have to offer just enough incentives to keep them from jumping ship. But the average American voter certainly doesn't care for corporate America either, and as you can see here from the other comments, we'll also blame them for not sticking around to take another beating. Do you think the average government worker in Washington "cares" about the average American citizen either? Yet we give them more and more authority over us to protect us from those institutions that are free to go somewhere else if the going gets too tough here.
To bring things back we have to once again realize that with the exception of a few e
Re:What are they avoiding (besides paying taxes)? (Score:5, Interesting)
Back then you had companies dumping hazardous chemicals into aquifers, and exploiting workers as well as the Union contracts (or lack of a union), and labour market allowed. I talked to one lady who worked in an office environment in the early '70s.... When an important executive came into town, they'd pick a random receptionist to 'take care of his needs'. It was a case of 'put up or get out' and, for a young woman with few other prospects and the likelihood of a bad reference if she said 'no', there were some very hard choices to be made.
It's long been case that your average large conglomerate was focused on making a profit -- by hook or croock. The difference was that -- roughly from the 60s to the 80s the electorate had a reasonable control of the government, which responded by setting laws and regulations which generally worked for the average citizen. Nowadays, big business has gotten their claws (back) into the heart of government.
Instead of setting the rules and laws such that a corporation hellbent on making money would act in a way that (generally) worked for the populace, now the laws are increasingly being set so that a corporation hellbent on making a profit will be able to set the rules so that they work for the greater profit rather than the greater good.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Look at Ford as an example. Got sued (and lost) by stockholders for paying his workers too much. He then bought out all the stockholders and could pay his workers well with the idea that they would then have enough money to buy a Ford as well as having a decent life.
Also it is still like that with small non publicly owned companies.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ford introduced the world's first moving assembly line that year, which reduced chassis assembly time from 12½ hours in October to 2 hours, 40 minutes. However, these innovations were hard on employees, and turnover of workers was very high. Turnover meant delays and extra costs of training, and use of slow workers. In January 1914, Ford solved the employee turnover problem by doubling pay to $5 a day ($103 per day in 2006 dollars), cutting shifts from nine hours to an eight hour day for a 5 day work week, and instituting hiring practices that identified the best workers. Thus, it pioneered the minimum wage and the 40 hour work week in the United States, before the government enacted it. Thus, Henry Ford became an American legend.
Productivity soared and employee turnover plunged, and the cost per vehicle plummeted. Ford cut prices again and again and invented the system of franchised dealers who were loyal to his brand name. Wall Street had disagreed with Ford's generous labor practices when he began paying workers enough to buy the products they made.
Seems like a smart move to me and if they had kept similar attitudes the unions would not have moved in which seems to be a problem now.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
People are starting to just grasp at straws now, either out of hate for Haliburton or a dislike of corporations in general.
Besides, the UAE doesn't enforce Sharia law, so that means there are hotties running around with very little clothing on!
Re:I'd pick Dubai over Houston any day of the week (Score:5, Interesting)
A very large population of indentured slaves, for example.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The UAE labor law does not cover domestic workers. Many are physically and sexually abused. Stories abound of housemaids who try to escape their employers' homes knowing neither the address nor the phone number, nor even the family's full name. Some end up in hospitals, victims of rape. Rarely is an employer prosecuted. Authorities are threatening to shut down Dubai's only shelter for women and children survivors of violence, including women domestic workers who have suffered abuse by their employers. The best that an abused domestic worker can hope for is an airline ticket back home and a lifetime of shame.
Which also had this quote which reminded me of our own H1B indentured servants
A Qatari citizen--the sponsor--procures a visa for a worker and thereby controls that worker's movements for the duration of his or her contract while in Qatar.
Just because we're not in the middle east, dosen't mean we don't like to enslave indiana tech workers. Check out the H1B.. it's bloody evil.
-GiH
Re: (Score:2)
And the laws have lagged behind: most Laws will not apply or not quickly enough to prevent this kind of thievery, a judge will take years to trace funds from one place to another (it will have left then) and there are much holes and fiscal paradises that are exploited to loot in a legal way.
Tactically and politically (Score:5, Insightful)
Create [slashdot.org] debt, maintain [slashdot.org] debt, keep people in debt, work those people until they die of debt.
99% of everything else, from suicide bombers to international embargoes, is just PR (running interference, Kansas City Shuffle, sh*tter tennies) to keep the citizens from realizing how deep into debt their political representatives are selling them.
Re:What are they avoiding (besides paying taxes)? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What are they avoiding (besides paying taxes)? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:What are they avoiding (besides paying taxes)? (Score:5, Informative)
That's not true.[pretty good source [whitehouse.gov]
Additionally, before he became Vice President, he excercised options worth over $30,000,000.
Re:What are they avoiding (besides paying taxes)? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What are they avoiding (besides paying taxes)? (Score:5, Interesting)
I completely agree. And I wish someone would mod you up, because your post brings us much closer to the truth.
Dick Cheney got the job as CEO of Halliburton (his first job in the private sector) as a result of being Secretary of Defense. Before Dick Cheney was Secretary of Defense, Halliburton was nothing -- his decisions as Defense Secretary made Halliburton wealthy. So if Cheney is getting paid now, it's because of the wealth he created Halliburton during his reign as Secretary of Defense -- not as CEO. As CEO, he implemented a very aggressive take over strategy of asbestos companies (after the scandal had already broken out) which basically got Halliburton to pick up many bargains -- but eventually led it to declare bankruptcy (i.e. Corporate Welfare).
Now Hilary Clinton may be as corrupt as Cheney, may be, but compared to Dick Cheney -- Hillary Clinton is a freaking genius where it comes to business. Hell, even George W. Bush's failed business record is not as bad as Cheney's.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
By 1982, it had 115,000 employees [wikipedia.org]. A company with over 100,000 people is very much "something", not "nothing".
Cheney was Secretary of Defense in 1989.
So you, stephanruby, are either a frickin liar or just plain ignorant.
You're right. I'm a complete dumb ass. I tried, but couldn't substantiate the details of what I asserted.
The Halliburton stock did almost hit rock bottom, but that was when Cheney was the Minority Whip -- a couple of years before he became Secretar
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Does a crime have to have been committed for a criminal investigation to
be carried out? If so, then the tail is chasing the dog, and nothing
ever gets started. So, there was an investigation. The jury believes
that Scooter obstructed that investigation by not being honest ( kinda
like Clinton was dishonest, perhaps ).
And tell me truely, if a Democratic administration had disclosed the
identity of a spouse of a critic of that administration that had held
a similiar position, that the Repu
Re:What are they avoiding (besides paying taxes)? (Score:5, Insightful)
I see Clinton being grilled before a grand jury because a case was brought AGAINST HIM on sexual harrasment (ok, it was White Water which subsequently led to sexual harrasment), and then he clearly committed perjury in an attempt to avoid being found guilty, and basically got a slap on the wrist, despite the fact that republicans are in charge of the legislative branch.
I see Sandy Berger commmitting what is ostensibly treason and getting a slap on the wrist because he's "just sloppy," despite the fact that the republicans are in charge of both the executive and legislative branches.
I see Scooter Libby being questioned in a case where he hasn't been accused of a crime, has no reason to cover anything up since he hasn't been charged with anything and knows he isn't guilty, and giving a couple of wrong dates or times because he couldn't remember, all questions asked during a case that never had any merit (and this was known by the prosecuter on day one), and this is the guy that gets jail time, despite the fact that the investigation happened with a republican legislative and executive brance, and the verdict being reached with a republican in the white house.
Was he guilty? Yes! He should have just said "I don't remember" and given the best answer he could within what he could remember.
BUT, are you seriously going to tell me this guy deserves jail time when the others didn't?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What are they avoiding (besides paying taxes)? (Score:5, Informative)
And remember, the Jury wasn't presented with all of the facts. They were not presented with the covert status of Ms. Plame. They were not presented the identity of who actually "leaked" her role at the CIA. They were not presented with the lies her husband told to the press, and they were not presented the motivations behind the actual leaker. Nope -- they were presented with a handful of conflicting testimonies from different reporters who all agreed that Libby didn't leak any covert agents name, but disagreed about what day they actually talked to Libby on.
Of course you would. That was the clear goal from the moment this farce of an investigation was started.
Implicates them with what? The leak did NOT come from the White House! It came from the State Department, from a person who disagreed with the war. The only thing the White House can be implicated on is doing a piss poor job of discrediting a critic that was spreading open lies about them that the NY Times was lapping up.
I'd recommend that you re-evaluate your "serious appraisal of the facts" to include, well, facts. Yours is a laughable argument considering the majority of the rabid left Bush-haters "facts" include cheering a spirited op-ed and placing a sticker on their car with a lined-out "W" on it. Wow, that sure does wonders for factual political discord, doesn't it?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh pray tell, what did Wilson lie about? That he should have known that his wife had recommended him for the job, I'll give you that one -- but that's about it (and good luck proving it by the way). Joseph Wilson is not the anti-war liberal hack know-nothing that the republicans are trying to make him out to be. And the extreme-right bloggers that make him out to be a former Clinton aid who was against the war are just a
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The dates were not the only things that got mixed-up. Apparently, he also had trouble telling the difference between Dick Cheney and his reporter friend. May be the next time around, he should just ask Dick Cheney and his friend to wear name tags or something.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So where were we....
Your argument is specious and consists of meaningless statements that have no bearing on the issue. In other words, your claims lack integrity.
Lied about wha
Re:What are they avoiding (besides paying taxes)? (Score:5, Informative)
2) He lied when he claimed that his trip did not find any facts to support the claim that Iraq had sought Uranium from Africa. In fact, it was his testimony [factcheck.org] to the CIA that confirmed Iraq had sent an delegation to Niger for the purpose of "uranium yellowcake sales". The Senate Intelligence Committee report concluded that Wilson's trip to Niger "lent more credibility to the original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reports on the uranium deal."
3) He lied when he claimed that the identity of his wife was revealed by the White House in an effort to rebuke him for disagreeing with their war stance. We know for a fact that the identity of his wife was accidentally revealed by Richard Armitage, a State Department war critic who didn't have any motive to criminally disclose the identity of Wilson's wife.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
4) He lied about his wife's covert status. We know now from Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald that Ms. Plame had a desk job at the agency and had not been "covert" for years, and that the CIA did not deny her identity to reporters who called to confirm.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Read the Constitution. It's Congress' job to make sure that the executive branch is following the law. Small 'j' justice is inherently political, especially wrt Congressional oversight of the Executive. We elect people through a political process to
Re:What are they avoiding (besides paying taxes)? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Dubai has no extradition treaty with the US (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry - did I put enough sarcasm on that?
Re:Dubai has no extradition treaty with the US (Score:5, Funny)
I'm not sure you did. My text to speech program had you sounding very monotone.
Not only taxes (Score:5, Interesting)
Heck, with all of the crap which has been going on lately, it may even be a security move: in that the execs may actually feel safer in Dubai from the revenge of the people they've ruthlessly swindled in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Not only taxes (Score:4, Informative)
Cheney's retirement? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
As for Dubai buying up all sort of stuff. Dubai is swimming in cash from oil revenue. They knonw that the oil won't last forever. Massive investment in recreation facilities (as a tourism destination) and diversification in major international corporations with good cash flow is just plain smart business.
I'll be lifting a glass of celebratory champagne when George the worst and his pack of Nixon era cronies leave office, but even I don't think there's really all that much to
Re:Cheney's retirement? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Cheney's retirement? (Score:4, Interesting)
Thing is, there is essentially nothing you can do to stop them - you* voted them in. Twice. All you can do is vote them our next time - preferrably by a wide enough margin that there is no question as to who won.
*The you I am referring to is the collective, American you, not you-singular. You may have voted for someone else, but clearly you didn't convince enough people to vote with you (maybe you should have a few more pen pals in battleground states?). I'm guilty, too. I didn't vote for him (else I'd be complaining about tomato and vinegar subsidies, I suppose), but I also didn't convince enough of my Virginia bretheren to vote against him. I will take credit for voting out Allen, though. And for keeping Boucher in office. Might as well take some credit as well as the blame. If it makes you feel better, my other half - who did vote for him - has finally come to her senses and realized that she made a horrible mistake. And if those nuts in Iowa don't all get drunk and vote for Hillary, she just might correct that mistake next time.
You can't make this crap up (Score:5, Informative)
Not a move (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Not a move (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
if i learned anything from starcraft... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Negative PR? Yeah... sure. (Score:2)
Not moving headquaters, not moving corporate state (Score:5, Informative)
A second local "headquarters" will be set up in Dubai, and the CEO will reside there.
The current "headquarters" will remain in Houston, TX.
The Dubai office is to get closer to the action and get some PR separation from us dirty Americans
The corporation will still be registered, and taxable, in the US. Changes to the laws make offshoring more difficult, including needing to have 10% of the Halliburton workforce located in Dubai in order to swith their corporate tax liabilities out of the US. Given the size of Halliburton, that's likely not going to happen.
Finally, the major support contracts for the US military are held by a subsidiary of Halliburton which will be spun off as an independent US corporation next month.
Now, one final disclaimer: this is all from memory based on a short bit on te radio. Feel free to fill in the blanks and correct the errors (be they in my memory or by the reporting staff at NPR).
Re:Not moving headquaters, not moving corporate st (Score:4, Funny)
Uh huh. And are they changing their name? Ahalibartan or something like that? Otherwise it's like Coca Cola trying to distance itself from its American image.
Will they still count as a US company? (Score:2)
Or does Halliburton just not do that kind of work?
Anyone got any information?
Re: (Score:2)
from their website... (Score:2)
*hmm* community involvement indeed!
You've got to be kidding (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
sounds legitimate to me (Score:5, Interesting)
A lot of people have mentioned the Halliburton contracts in iraq, but Halliburton is spinning off it's military division anyway and is likely to be distanced from iraq. Aside from that, I don't think anyone at Halliburton takes the notion seriously that they will be sued when an ex-CEO is practically running the country... if they were ever afraid of that the abuses wouldn't have happened in the first place.
Also, a bunch of people have mentioned criminal charges. A lot of the problems with Halliburton, Halliburton can't really be held responsible, since the problems originated in the fact that we negotiated such crappy contracts with them. If you're contract has holes in it, you're pretty fucked when it comes to trial.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but why did Bush's government negotiate crappy contracts?
Might just be typical Bush Administration heckuva job incompetence, might be a typical giveaway to Republican-supporting companies.
Or, it could be corruption of procurement officials, as in the Boeing scandal [govexec.com].
"'I can unequivocally state that the abuse related to contracts awarded to KBR [Halliburton] represents the most blatant and improper abuse I h
Well now that they're a foreign company... (Score:5, Insightful)
Get your facts straight (Score:5, Informative)
But as Slate's "Explainer," well, explains, Halliburton "is still incorporated in Delaware and remains subject to U.S. law and taxes." The article goes on to say that Halliburton would have a hell of a time incorporating in Dubai, but moving its workforce overseas is not out of the question.
After all, 55% of the company's business comes from the Eastern hemisphere. This move makes perfect sense, given their long-term business plans.
PS: The company's defense component, KBR, is set to become its own company. Halliburton's new HQ should not affect KBR.
http://www.slate.com/id/2161652/fr/rss/ [slate.com]
According to the company... (Score:5, Interesting)
They want the HQ to be closer to the majority of the fields they operate and to the bulk of their customers, which is Asia. Their main business is "oil services", mind you. And the biggest oil fields are around the Gulf...
Not sure, why all this is /. material, though...
Stuff that Doesn't Matter (Score:3, Insightful)
And the reason why Slashdot is reporting on this is?...
It's one thing to cover major political stories here, but this is silly.
oh yeah? (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't they see the inconsistencies? (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe I just hang out too much with the anti-war crowd but the only explanation that really makes sense to me for why Bush decided to invade Iraq is that Bush had friends in the oil industry that wanted access to Iraq's oil.
Every other explanation for why Bush decided to invaded is inconsistent with other considerations.
Obviously, the Bush administration has given a lot of justifications for invading Iraq. None of the justifications make sense when I actually think about them in detail. Some people claim that Bush is just really stupid but I have a hard time believing that that's the case. After all, Bush was smart enough to get himself elected to USA president twice.
In the end, I have to conclude that Bush's decision to invade Iraq was really about Bush helping out his friends in the oil industry. What puzzles me is that so many people just accept Bush's other justifications - even congress. Do members of congress know Bush is lying but they don't think it's politically expedient to call Bush on it. What about the news media? Do they know Bush is lying but they figure it makes a better story to pretend he's not? What about the general public? Don't they recognize the inconsistencies?
And don't even get me started on the general public's support for massive deficit spending...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I guess you were not paying attention to the
Im sad (Score:2)
Let them leave then cancel ALL contracts! (Score:5, Interesting)
To make things fair, these and more rules should be applied to any US company that leaves.
On another note, what does this topic have to do with the usual technology issues on Slashdot?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Why is this "greed"? (Score:4, Insightful)
I know that a lot of people have accused Halliburton of wrongdoing on other issues, but this issue is completely unrelated to those charges. The previous charges seem to be a bit vague at times, and I don't have any opinion about them one way or the other, because I don't know the facts. But on the issue of saving money on taxes by moving an office, the company is completely justified in making the move. I would recommend any company do the same thing under similar circumstances.
David
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
David
Re:Why is this "greed"? (Score:5, Insightful)
After receiving more than generous treatment by the American government in obtaining contracts for its subsidiaries, Halliburton decides it can evade taxes (and possibly pesky laws that prohibit it form directly dealing with Iran) by moving to the UAE. Okay, they take billions of dollars in profits from favorable government treatment (possibly even criminally favorable) and then go so far as to move overseas to keep the government's "dirty hands" off their money. They've taken all they can take from America - so now they're throwing their lot in with the UAE. Let me break out the crayon so you can keep up.
You may, in fact, be sufficiently deluded, or like most people simply filter out information you don't buy, but their behavior is greedy! If you can't see that's greedy then I can't help you. People have an internal moral compass and generally they know when they're doing the wrong thing. I've been either independant or owned my own business for half my working career. I've always known when something wasn't right. I may have made a buck or two less by doing the right thing as opposed to the most porfitable thing, but it was the right thing to do and I know I'm a better person for it.
If we take your train of stupidity to its natural conclusion, we come to the notion that lying, cheating, and stealing are good because they're great ways to make money. Why return the money in a wallet you find when you can keep it? Why not steal information from competitors, so you can underbid them? Unless you understand what greed is, you have an underdeveloped sense of morallity. Unfortunately, too many people in this country take the view that morality is second to making money. So, like you, they collective moral conscience is underdeveloped.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:HEY EVERYBODY (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Good move (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You forgot arguments. Please, try again.
Re:Arguments - Here's a few (Score:4, Funny)
Re:why do liberals hate america? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Politics for Nerds. I guess. (Score:4, Insightful)
I dunno, did Nabisco's management use its high-ranking government cronies to rake in billions of dollars in criminally-constructed no-bid contracts?