<p>Barring Halliburton from ALL government contracts pending outcome of investigations would seem to be a very reasonable start.</p>
<p>Isn’t that what just happened? If that’s what you wanted, why are you still dissatisfied? I must be missing something.</p>
<p>At least LOOKING at the contracts, etc…having a meeting…but no, congress spent days talking about steriods…yeah, like no body else in the country could do that…</p>
<p>Shaking my head…of ALL the issues…</p>
<p>And now we have people faking meetings to the Supreme Court!!! That is it, don’t have meetings at all, just fake stuff…eh</p>
<p>"Barring Halliburton from ALL government contracts pending outcome of investigations would seem to be a very reasonable start.</p>
<p>Isn’t that what just happened? If that’s what you wanted, why are you still dissatisfied? I must be missing something."</p>
<p>You definitely ARE missing something. Not only does have Halliburton have dozens (and through their subsidiaries, HUNDREDS) of federal contracts, but even in the three contracts newly to be let, they are among the prime and leading bidders.</p>
<p>“bidders” now that is an interesting way of saying, here to go</p>
<p>halliburton doesn’t really bid, we know that, there has always been a reason to give contracts to them even if they are the highest, the least competent, etc…but since everything is hidden because of “national security” we wil never see the truth, the real numbers, what they done or not done</p>
<p>You definitely ARE missing something. Not only does have Halliburton have dozens (and through their subsidiaries, HUNDREDS) of federal contracts, but even in the three contracts newly to be let, they are among the prime and leading bidders.</p>
<p>I apologize, I didn’t get the scope of what you meant in the previous post. I don’t agree with freezing out Halliburton completely because I don’t think there are too many companies that can actually do what they do, but I do understand what you mean now. Thank you for clarifying.</p>
<p>“bidders” now that is an interesting way of saying, here to go</p>
<p>halliburton doesn’t really bid, we know that, there has always been a reason to give contracts to them even if they are the highest, the least competent, etc…but since everything is hidden because of “national security” we wil never see the truth, the real numbers, what they done or not done</p>
<p>Are you always this strident and paranoid or is it only with regard to the Bush administration? I always think it’s beyond snarky for people on my side of issues to refer to “Bush Derangement Syndrome,” but some of your posts today have made me wonder. Perhaps it’s the limitations of the medium that make posts seem to be what they are not.</p>
<p>" don’t think there are too many companies that can actually do what they do, but I do understand what you mean now."</p>
<p>Tis true - I don’t think there are that many companies who have figured out good ways to profit by robbing American troops in Iraq. I guess that qualifies 'em. ;)</p>
<p>" don’t think there are too many companies that can actually do what they do, but I do understand what you mean now."</p>
<p>Tis true - I don’t think there are that many companies who have figured out good ways to profit by robbing American troops in Iraq. I guess that qualifies 'em. </p>
<p>If true, the behavior is criminal and should be prosecuted. We’re in complete agreement with that. So if you ban Halliburton, does that mean the supplies don’t get to the troops at all, or does that mean they have to be removed from foreign theaters immediately?</p>
<p>Yes. Yes. and Yes. And the whole point is that much of the supplies are not getting to the troops NOW. </p>
<p>I spend a half a day a week filling out state requisitions. Companies that are under investigation for criminal wrongdoing are barred from competing for contracts. ANY contracts. It’s pretty simple, really. And, you know what? As soon as that happens, dozens of other companies (often run by the same execs 
) come out of the woodwork.</p>
<p>And, you know what? As soon as that happens, dozens of other companies (often run by the same execs ) come out of the woodwork.</p>
<p>Now THAT is interesting. And not in a good way.</p>
<p>It’s absolutely amazing that this thread went from barry bonds to Iraq and Haliburton in less than 2 pages.</p>
<p>If I may be so bold as to return to barry this does not have much to do with congress, other than their fleeting Barnum & Bailey investigation. It has to do more I believe with grand jury investigations in California and bonds testimony there. In any event, while there are certainly many more important issues in the world, this is still an issue to pursue and given the reality that sports and baseball in particular are a huge part of American history and culture.</p>
<p>It is interesting that in attempting to deflect attention that has been one of bonds biggest weapons i.e. to admonish reporters that there are bigger issues in the world.</p>
<p>I am a big baseball fan, have represented players and have met barry. He is as “unlikeable” a human being as you could have the misfortune to meet. </p>
<p>Not certain what the perjury charge would pertain to, but he has admitted to talking two steroid products (the “clear” and the “cream”) but that he did not know they were steroids (lawyerspeak to avoid the necessary element of intent for the crime). It is also rather inescapable that he has taken human growth hormone given the fairly undisputed evidence that his hat/helmet/skull size has changed. The adult human skull does not change in this fashion absent growth hormone or in the case of the rarest of diseases (none of which seem to ail barry).</p>
<p>Major league baseball and bonds defenders are quick to point out the MLB did not have a ban on these various substances at the time bonds may have taken 'em, but that ignores the fact that they are illegal without proper prescription regardless of baseball’s own rules (but unfortuantely consistent with an attitude that baseball’s own rules are above the law-for those with a history bent, same scenario with the 1919 Chicago “Black Sox” found innocent in court of throwing the World series but banned for life by the baseball commissioner).</p>
<p>In any event, no doubt in my mind from what i’ve seen that barry has used these “enhancing” drugs, that he is a cheater and that is indictment may well (and deservedly) take him down.</p>
<p>“In any event, no doubt in my mind from what i’ve seen that barry has used these “enhancing” drugs, that he is a cheater and that is indictment may well (and deservedly) take him down.”</p>
<p>Bullwinkle, in your esteemed opinion, what should/will be MLB and the Giant’s response to an indictment?</p>
<p>well first of all i think my opinion is probably more “steamed” than esteemed. </p>
<p>I think the Giants will back barry as far as they can but, not sure how far that will go as the word is barry is leaving after this season to move to the american league (quite likely Oakland or Los Angeles/Anaheim) to be a designated hitter as his days in the field are really done. So how far loyalty will go will be interesting. Plus the Giants are in the thick of the division fight so they aren’t going to want distractions and if there really is proof that’s going to bring barry down, I think the Giants will want to divorce themselves from him.</p>
<p>As far as Major league baseball, it has a poor track record in taking a stand in a controversy, is often hand tied by the players’ union and their contract. I believe there is ultimately some from of morals type clause in the collective bargaining agreement and if bonds is convicted, not simply indicted they may use this “morals” and best interests of the game a la Pete Rose to kick bonds to the curb. I don’t think there is alot of support to see bonds become the all time home run record holder and he is one of the least popular players ever. Given something to really hang their hat on i think MLB will somehow force bonds out or cooperate in some feigned retirement all as a quid pro quo so he can still get in the hall of fame and not receive some ban (again like Rose).</p>
<p>Bottomline, baseball does not need the negative publicity and I think will separate themselves from barry if it looks like there is real substance to the charges that seem to be looming.</p>
<p>bonds is in deep ****.</p>
<p>he was a top 15 player all time before.</p>
<p>now in many peoples minds he’s a cheater who has tarnished a HOF legacy.</p>
<p>I think that he will get indicted.</p>
<p>He already admitted to taking the clear and the cream, its only one more step to prove he knew he was taking it.</p>
<p>just wanted to add that apparently what is going on with barroid isn’t even so much the drug issue (which is certainly a part of it and his grand jury testimony in that regard) but the bigger point seems to be investigation as to tax evasion and money laundering. </p>
<p>Apparently a former business partner/childhood friend and a former mistress have provided information and/or testimony that bonds “laundered” money, passing on cash from memorabilia shows to girllfriends for homes and cars. </p>
<p>I Heard an audio tape last night of what is allegedly bonds instructing a former girlfriend as to what she is to do with money that had just been forwarded to her. </p>
<p>Several players in the recent past have been convicted of pocketing and not declaring cash payments from memorabilia shows/companies. Apparently cash payments are a common practice in that “industry” and I guess not declaring the cash is an equally common practice.</p>
<p>Just as Al Capone went down for tax evasion rather than his more notorious conduct, it seems like bonds may be swimming down that same stream.</p>
<p>Bullwinkle, thanks for taking the time to explain the circumstances. I hadn’t realized there was so much else going on.</p>