Military shuts down fast food in Afghanistan - "It's not an amusement park"

Its simple....replace Haliburton with ACORN here where you decry the armchair quarterbacks:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

My experience has been that there was but one company that was pre-positioned to provide service to deployed troops, and I was the receipent of those services, Haliburton. Love them or hate them, they were the only company who over the 50 years learned to pre-position themselves to provide the services that we needed. Were they always good? no. Where they always there? yes. The whole smoke and mirrors bullshit arguement that there were "no bid" contracts was a weak arguement put forward by those who failed to get in the game early. Were the buildings crapy? sure, but the beat laying in the sand. Did all the generators work all the time? nope, but there were people there to fix them. Did the food suck? Nope, because we ate pretty damm well.

Screw the armchair quarterbacks.

and my response:

Originally Posted by Redux

Ask folks in the inner city or those, particularly minorities. who feel disenfranchised and they will say the same thing about ACORN.

For forty years they pre-positioned themselves to be there for the underserved community. The whole smoke and mirrors bullshit argument that they had an institutional plan to commit voter fraud was a weak argument by those who did not want to see increased voter participation in the minority communities.l

Were they always good? no Did the minority community get assistance with housing, credit and finance issues, voter registration. You bet they did.

And they never sexually molested (or allegedly gang raped) a co-worker or knowingly endangered the lives of others and committed negligent homicide from faulty wiring in showers.

Screw you, hypocrite.

Two sides of the same coin, dude.

In the later, you are the armchair quarterback.

[TheMercenary]

So what is your point? You think you are more right? You think that some group like ACORN that broke the law is above the laws broken by contractors hired by Haliburton? or that in some way Haliburton condoned the law breaking actions of their subcontractors or that the people actually caught on video who represented ACORN were not responsible for their actions?

You have confused the two organizations and how they are structured. Haliburton subcontracts much of their services, ACORN did not. Not two sides of the same coin.

Your arm chair quarterbacking have no basis in fact unless of course you are going to tell us you worked for ACORN.

I did receive the excellent services of Haliburton on a regular basis while on deployment.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

So what is your point? You think you are more right? You think that some group like ACORN that broke the law is above the laws broken by contractors hired by Haliburton? or that in some way Haliburton condoned the law breaking actions of their subcontractors or that the people actually caught on video who represented ACORN were not responsible for their actions?

You have confused the two organizations and how they are structured. Haliburton subcontracts much of their services, ACORN did not. Not two sides of the same coin.

Your arm chair quarterbacking have no basis in fact unless of course you are going to tell us you worked for ACORN.

I did receive the excellent services of Haliburton on a regular basis while on deployment.

My point is simple...apply the same standards to both.

Both received govt funding...one, far more signficantly. Both have engaged in questionable practices...one far more serious (gang rape) and nearly $1 billion in overcharges in the last seven years.

You cant or wont do that.

So Haliburton subcontracts and ACORN has distinct sub-orgs that separate voter advocacy and housing assistance.

One supports the military and one supports disadvantaged minorities (tit suckers)

Why should they not be held to the same standard?

I have never said they should be judged by different standards as you have.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

My point is simple...apply the same standards to both.

Both received govt funding...one, far more signficantly. Both have engaged in questionable practices...one far more serious (gang rape) and nearly $1 billion in overcharges in the last seven years.

You cant or wont do that.

So Haliburton subcontracts and ACORN has distinct sub-orgs that separate voter advocacy and housing assistance.

One supports the military and one supports disadvantaged minorities (tit suckers)

Why should they not be held to the same standard?

I have never said they should be judged by different standards as you have.

1. Where did I state they should be "judged by different standards"?

2. Where did I state that "disadvantaged minorities" were "tit suckers"?

Really. You are really reaching here and reading into my statements. Obviously reading what you want to believe about me....

Further, how many "gang rapes" happened that taint the whole organization and do you have proof that the organization was complicit? Or was this the responsibility of one person or group of people who should be held accountable for their actions?

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

1. Where did I state they should be "judged by different standards"?

Read back..your posts speak for themselves.

2. Where did I state that "disadvantaged minorities" were "tit suckers"?

Read back...your posts speak for themselves.

... Or was this the responsibility of one person or group of people who should be held accountable for their actions?

Same could be said about the ACORN employees.

Yet, you do not apply the same standards. Read your posts in the ACORN thread and see if you applied the same standard that you propose for Haliburton employees.

[TheMercenary]

Ok, you can't support your statements. Thanks.

Anyone can do some basic research and see the differences between "Haliburton" (or were you talking about KBR) and ACORN. The differences were huge, I mean since ACORN is now gone and Haliburton is still around.

Here is a good little factoid:

ACORN parent group founded in 1970

Haliburton parent group founded in 1910

The differences are just so huge.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

I'm confused. If I misinterpreted you, that's one thing.

But are you seriously trying to claim that a moderator (who one can assume knows the criteria for banning) quoting one of those criteria in reference to a poster is too subtle to be interpreted as a reference to banning? If that's subtle, what is the obvious interpretation?

You are the only one that said anything about banning. I was reminding them of the fucking rules.
A lot of people, myself included, are sick and tired of the Merc/Redux pissing match being repeated, verbatim, in threads they don't belong. They are more than welcome to take it back where it started, and piss away, till the cows come home, but in this thread they're becoming intolerably irritating.

[TheMercenary]

Just ban us both and be done with it... be sure and send me a message before you do it.

[Shawnee123]

Don't arguments that started over the military fast food thing belong in the military fast food thread?

What's the big deal? Let 'em have at it. Don't read it if you don't like it. My favorite unwritten rule, knocked into my skull some time ago.

"Well, when I hit new threads it's always there..." Yeah, well I get sick of word association too.

[Shawnee123]

amusement park

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

I would not support Redux banning. What has happened is between him and I,

[grammar]Him and ME[/Nazi]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

You are the only one that said anything about banning. ...

FWIW, I interpretted your comment the same way.

[Shawnee123]

Mebbe he meant what happened is between the eyes.

[spelling]interpreted[/Nazi]

[Spexxvet]

mebbeee 'cause he's a potato head.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

Mebbe he meant what happened is between the eyes.

[spelling]interpreted[/Nazi]

That's the rule. If you point out someone's misssssstake, your post is going to include a mistake of your own. I'm just following the rules *trying to dance out of this one*

[Shawnee123]

I luvz ya Spexx. Trying for some levity, before I get someone all riled up about church or war or religion or sanctioned pedophilia or queue lines or greed or a million other evils.