V.P. Debates...

Page 1 of 3 123 Last
  1. Registered User
    kwyckemynd00's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"   lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Age
    31
    Posts
    5,324
    Rep Power
    2849
    Level
    52
    Lv. Percent
    88.84%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting ProPosting Authority

    V.P. Debates...


    I thought Cheney did very well, especially on foreign policy issues. I heard some people saying that Edwards did better on the domestic issues, I disagree. I think it was more of a draw. Edwards fumbled around a lot and Cheney was able to rebut many of his major accusations. But Edwards did do much better on that half of the debate and did make some good points; I don't think his ticket would make improvements on these things, however. You've got to remember, these accusations are easily made b/c hindsight is 20/20.

  2. darius
    Guest
    darius's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by kwyckemynd00
    I thought Cheney did very well, especially on foreign policy issues. I heard some people saying that Edwards did better on the domestic issues, I disagree. I think it was more of a draw. Edwards fumbled around a lot and Cheney was able to rebut many of his major accusations. But Edwards did do much better on that half of the debate and did make some good points; I don't think his ticket would make improvements on these things, however. You've got to remember, these accusations are easily made b/c hindsight is 20/20.
    Yeah. As a Kerry supporter, I felt Cheney did a little bit better than Edwards, but overall it was very close. Nothing like Bush's horrible defeat to Kerry in the first debate.

    It was funny when Edwards talked about Haliburton. Cheney looked a bit tense. He didn't have much of a rebutal to Edwards claims on it either.
  3. Professional Member
    size's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Age
    42
    Posts
    4,232
    Rep Power
    2270
    Level
    44
    Lv. Percent
    93.17%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Halliburton discussion is very odd. The reason being that Halliburton is one of the few companies in the world that does what it does. In addition, Halliburton is the best at what it does.
    •   
       

  4. Registered User
    kwyckemynd00's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"   lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Age
    31
    Posts
    5,324
    Rep Power
    2849
    Level
    52
    Lv. Percent
    88.84%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting ProPosting Authority

    Quote Originally Posted by size
    Halliburton discussion is very odd. The reason being that Halliburton is one of the few companies in the world that does what it does. In addition, Halliburton is the best at what it does.
    ROFL. You hit the nail on the head. Of course Haliburton will get the work if nobody does it better. ROFL. I like how he mentioned the factchecks.org (or whatever the website was) for all of the conspiracy thoerists victims to look at. That was a smart move.

    EDIT: I take it back about fackcheck.org...it's a liberal POS website that has one story that partially exonerates Haliburton; not only that, but Dick Cheney sent people to "factcheck.com" which was non-existant until tonight! After that messup, the website was bought up by left-leaning democrats and redirects people to a George Soros website!! WTF? Cheney's supposed to be a genius and he does this ****....grrrr.
    Last edited by kwyckemynd00; 10-06-2004 at 04:32 AM.
  5. Registered User
    kwyckemynd00's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"   lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Age
    31
    Posts
    5,324
    Rep Power
    2849
    Level
    52
    Lv. Percent
    88.84%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting ProPosting Authority

    Quote Originally Posted by darius
    ....Nothing like Bush's horrible defeat to Kerry in the first debate.
    ....
    horrible defeat....not quite. anyone who's read the transcripts knows that Kerry did nothing more than "sound good". I.E. If kerry's objective was to go from A---> B he would start at a, make a big elaborate twisting and winding u-turn that felt like a rollercoaster, and end right back up where he started, totally avoiding issue B. Bush did horrible, Kerry didn't defeat bush horribly. I dare you to ask anybody what Kerry said or what his plan is, as far as what they took from the debate. I doubt you'll get much from them. Bush was horrid though, I'll give you that. He could have "trashed" Kerry royally on many things that he just left in limbo after short rebuttals to obviously false charges. He screwed up bad.

    Back to the VP debate ...
  6. Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,543
    Rep Power
    2676
    Level
    47
    Lv. Percent
    20.39%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by kwyckemynd00
    horrible defeat....not quite. anyone who's read the transcripts knows that Kerry did nothing more than "sound good". I.E. If kerry's objective was to go from A---> B he would start at a, make a big elaborate twisting and winding u-turn that felt like a rollercoaster, and end right back up where he started, totally avoiding issue B. Bush did horrible, Kerry didn't defeat bush horribly. I dare you to ask anybody what Kerry said or what his plan is, as far as what they took from the debate. I doubt you'll get much from them. Bush was horrid though, I'll give you that. He could have "trashed" Kerry royally on many things that he just left in limbo after short rebuttals to obviously false charges. He screwed up bad.

    Back to the VP debate ...
    People are calling the VP debate dry. What the **** do they want, Jerry Springer? Should Cheney have hurled a chair at Edwards? That was a debate. Civilized, on point and well done. Even when these guys supposedly got tense with each other they did it civilly. If half the people on this planet would take a hint from these two at least as fa as attitude during their debate goes, the world would be a lot better place.

    It's amazing in the last two elections the presidential debates have been seriously ****ed and the VP debates have been damn good. What the hell is that about?
  7. Senior Member
    jarhead's Avatar
    Stats
    5'7"  243 lbs.
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Age
    40
    Posts
    1,295
    Rep Power
    819
    Level
    29
    Lv. Percent
    12.06%
    Achievements Posting Pro

    I thought cheney did awesome. i'm sick of hearing kerry's camps catch phrases with no plan to back them up. edwards kept turning different shades of red throughout the debates. plus the eye blinking was driving me nuts.
  8. New Member
    dito's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Age
    32
    Posts
    279
    Rep Power
    285
    Level
    15
    Lv. Percent
    50%

    I think it was a very close debate. But Edwards seemed to pull out in the end.

    Why can't Edwards and Cheney be running mates???
  9. Senior Member
    NPursuit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Age
    37
    Posts
    1,782
    Rep Power
    1034
    Level
    32
    Lv. Percent
    85.43%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by kwyckemynd00
    EDIT: I take it back about fackcheck.org...it's a liberal POS website that has one story that partially exonerates Haliburton; not only that, but Dick Cheney sent people to "factcheck.com" which was non-existant until tonight! After that messup, the website was bought up by left-leaning democrats and redirects people to a George Soros website!! WTF? Cheney's supposed to be a genius and he does this ****....grrrr.
    I thought Edwards sent them to factcheck.com not Cheney. Edwards did screw it up because it was suppose to be factcheck.org. I thought Cheney did a great job last night. I actually enjoyed last night's debate more than the presidential debate. Maybe Cheney should start speaking for Bush.
  10. ***** Vampire
    goldylight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    840
    Rep Power
    562
    Level
    24
    Lv. Percent
    71.79%

    Quote Originally Posted by NPursuit
    I thought Edwards sent them to factcheck.com not Cheney. Edwards did screw it up because it was suppose to be factcheck.org. I thought Cheney did a great job last night. I actually enjoyed last night's debate more than the presidential debate. Maybe Cheney should start speaking for Bush.
    I enjoyed last nights debate more that the frist presidential debate also. Edwards sounded like an idiot. cheney kicked his ass.
  11. Board Supporter
    houseman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,706
    Rep Power
    1017
    Level
    32
    Lv. Percent
    46.56%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by jarhead
    I thought cheney did awesome. i'm sick of hearing kerry's camps catch phrases with no plan to back them up.
    And Bush is different.... how?

    Catch phrases:

    Flip Flop
    Waffling


    What people fail recognize is that when people say Kerry didn't support this or didn't suppoert that or that he flip flopped his position they're not looking at the Bill that was being passed as to the reason WHY he might have changed positions. Instead, Republicans tell half the truth and only report what he did instead of the reasons behind it which in my opinion have been fairly consistent.

    The problem here is the person in charge of Kerry's campaign is a ****ing tool. They should have fought back with aggressive ads to explain and refute Bush's myths.

    Now... if you want to talk about Flip Flo pand Waffling... lets talk about it.

    Bush before the State of the Union in 2003:

    Iraq has WMD's and is a threat to US national security.

    Bush during and after the State of the Union in 2003:

    Iraqi people have been opressed and imprissioned by an evil dictator. They deserve to be free from his man. Blah blah blah.


    Bush code name for the Iraq War:

    Operation Iraqi Freedom


    Now, here's a man who went to war or started the wheels in motion based on the premise of WMD's and National Security then in his State of the Union brought into play something that was NEVER part of his plan: freeing the Iraqi people.

    My guess is that Bush knew of the false intelligence prior to the State of the Union which is WHY he brought in the concept of freeing the Iraqi people.

    So which is it? WMD's and National Security or Freeing the Iraqi people?

    Talk about a flip flop. And a big one at that... 200 billion and thousands of lives lost.


    Flame away
  12. Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,543
    Rep Power
    2676
    Level
    47
    Lv. Percent
    20.39%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by houseman
    And Bush is different.... how?
    Catch phrases:
    Flip Flop
    Waffling
    He tends to be more consistent, and has offerred up plenty of examples of Kerry's flip flops. Some further Kerry quotes:

    "...even knowing what we now know... I would have voted for the authority, [to invade Iraq]" - "I believe it was the right authority for the president to have." - John Kerry August 9, 2004

    "We should not have gone to war knowing the information that we know today." - John Kerry September 29, 2004

    "It was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein. And when the president made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him." -John Kerry, March 3, 2003

    "It was a mistake to do what he did..." - John Kerry September 29, 2004 - on Good Morning America regarding the Iraq war.


    What people fail recognize is that when people say Kerry didn't support this or didn't suppoert that or that he flip flopped his position they're not looking at the Bill that was being passed as to the reason WHY he might have changed positions. Instead, Republicans tell half the truth and only report what he did instead of the reasons behind it which in my opinion have been fairly consistent.
    He's got a right to change his mind, but consistent he's not been. As for his reasons, I've yet to hear him explain them in any coherent manner.

    Bush before the State of the Union in 2003:

    Iraq has WMD's and is a threat to US national security.

    Bush during and after the State of the Union in 2003:

    Iraqi people have been opressed and imprissioned by an evil dictator. They deserve to be free from his man. Blah blah blah.
    Where's the contradiction there?


    Bush code name for the Iraq War:

    Operation Iraqi Freedom


    Now, here's a man who went to war or started the wheels in motion based on the premise of WMD's and National Security then in his State of the Union brought into play something that was NEVER part of his plan: freeing the Iraqi people.
    IT's kind of a default that they'd be freed. I'm not a fan of war as I've said before, but do you honestly think we were just gonna go in and if the troops found no WMDs, Bush would have said, "Just checkin'" and pulled out, leaving Saddam in power. There were a myriad of reasons for going into I raq offerred, some more sound than others especially in hindsight. When it was found the WMD threat wasn't big it was appropriate to change the focus of the action.

    My guess is that Bush knew of the false intelligence prior to the State of the Union which is WHY he brought in the concept of freeing the Iraqi people.
    So which is it? WMD's and National Security or Freeing the Iraqi people?
    Talk about a flip flop. And a big one at that... 200 billion and thousands of lives lost.
    Flame away
    The 200 Billion figure is off, that's what's authjorized, plus I believe it's what's authorized across Afghanistan and Iraq, but it hasn't been spent yet. Thousands of lives lost, and how many before that under sanctions, maintaining the no fly zone, in Kosovo... All recent presidents are open to criticism regarding questionable use of the military, especially Clinton. Compare the ratio of civilians to soldiers killed in Iraq under Clinton and Bush, see who's doing better.

    As for Bush kowingly going to war under false pretenses, that's pretty paranoid, and I see no evidence to back it up anywhere. There was more or less agreement on the WMD issue, but a lot of disagreement on what kind of action it required, mostly because of a lack of evidence of ties between Iraq and Al Qeda which goes directly to the Clear and Present Danger standard. I do see some evidence however to support the conspiracy freaks who think France, Russia and China might have had other motives to oppose US action in Iraq than a devotion ot peace.
  13. Board Supporter
    DieTrying's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Age
    31
    Posts
    909
    Rep Power
    12960
    Level
    27
    Lv. Percent
    74.33%

    I felt it was a great debate with the win clearly going to Cheney. I agree that it was a fun and interesting debate to watch. As a republican, I am glad that finally we are starting to bring out some info about Kerry and Edwards' political history and voting records. People think that Kerry is a new guy off the street, but he has 30+ of voting down defense bills. I liked how Edwards changed his tone to sound like a badass every time he said "we will hunt down and kill terrorists." He can say what he wants, but I don't buy that somebody can change their belief system after voting a certain way for 30 years!

    I want to ask you guys a question. What would happen if you guys were supposed to show up for 36 meetings at your workplace and only showed up 3 times?
  14. Advanced Member
    Jeff's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  180 lbs.
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Age
    44
    Posts
    637
    Rep Power
    463
    Level
    20
    Lv. Percent
    79.75%

    mmmmmm oil-for-fooooooood mmmmmmmmm
  15. Advanced Member
    Jeff's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  180 lbs.
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Age
    44
    Posts
    637
    Rep Power
    463
    Level
    20
    Lv. Percent
    79.75%

    Quote Originally Posted by DieTrying
    I felt it was a great debate with the win clearly going to Cheney. I agree that it was a fun and interesting debate to watch. As a republican, I am glad that finally we are starting to bring out some info about Kerry and Edwards' political history and voting records. People think that Kerry is a new guy off the street, but he has 30+ of voting down defense bills. I liked how Edwards changed his tone to sound like a badass every time he said "we will hunt down and kill terrorists." He can say what he wants, but I don't buy that somebody can change their belief system after voting a certain way for 30 years!

    I want to ask you guys a question. What would happen if you guys were supposed to show up for 36 meetings at your workplace and only showed up 3 times?
    ****, where I work they make them part of the management team
  16. Senior Member
    MarcusG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    1,223
    Rep Power
    755
    Level
    28
    Lv. Percent
    24.56%
    Achievements Posting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by size
    Halliburton discussion is very odd. The reason being that Halliburton is one of the few companies in the world that does what it does. In addition, Halliburton is the best at what it does.

    Size, could you please elaborate. I always thought that Halliburton at least in recent years have been mired in controversy.
  17. ***** Vampire
    goldylight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    840
    Rep Power
    562
    Level
    24
    Lv. Percent
    71.79%

    Quote Originally Posted by MarcusG
    Size, could you please elaborate. I always thought that Halliburton at least in recent years have been mired in controversy.
    If they are so evil and have done so much wrong, then why have there been no charges brought against them?? It is because it is all baseless.
  18. Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,543
    Rep Power
    2676
    Level
    47
    Lv. Percent
    20.39%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by goldylight
    If they are so evil and have done so much wrong, then why have there been no charges brought against them?? It is because it is all baseless.
    Not necessarily. The problem with Haliburton is the same problem you find with any government contractor, that being they're not accountable to consumers but politicians, and so deeply entwined with the government they have about the same level of accountability as your local congressman, which near none. They essentially survive on government money. One columnist recently phrased it this way, that the profit is private but the risks are socialized. Plus it is a conflict of interest to have Cheney receiving compensation from the company and for him to work in a position in government that would give him influence over whether or not they get a certain contract. Whether anything unethical actually happened is irrelevant, the situation should have been avoided from the beginning. As for Haliburton doing anything that's illegal, I doubt it. But what's legal and what's right and ethical are often very different.
  19. Senior Member
    MarcusG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    1,223
    Rep Power
    755
    Level
    28
    Lv. Percent
    24.56%
    Achievements Posting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by goldylight
    If they are so evil and have done so much wrong, then why have there been no charges brought against them?? It is because it is all baseless.

    It'll look that way if you get your info from halliburton.com. Halliburton have paid fines and have had many investigations into its deals.
  20. Advanced Member
    Jeff's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  180 lbs.
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Age
    44
    Posts
    637
    Rep Power
    463
    Level
    20
    Lv. Percent
    79.75%

    Hey, nothing brings Dems and Reps together like SHOW TUNES

    enjoy
    http://jibjab.com/
  21. Advanced Member
    Jeff's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  180 lbs.
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Age
    44
    Posts
    637
    Rep Power
    463
    Level
    20
    Lv. Percent
    79.75%

    Quote Originally Posted by CDB
    Not necessarily. The problem with Haliburton is the same problem you find with any government contractor, that being they're not accountable to consumers but politicians, and so deeply entwined with the government they have about the same level of accountability as your local congressman, which near none. They essentially survive on government money. One columnist recently phrased it this way, that the profit is private but the risks are socialized. Plus it is a conflict of interest to have Cheney receiving compensation from the company and for him to work in a position in government that would give him influence over whether or not they get a certain contract. Whether anything unethical actually happened is irrelevant, the situation should have been avoided from the beginning. As for Haliburton doing anything that's illegal, I doubt it. But what's legal and what's right and ethical are often very different.
    I stole this from http://www.allahpundit.com

    Factcheck.org is being overwhelmed with traffic right now but reader Paul informs me that articles on the site are freely reprintable. Here, then, in full is Factcheck's recent article on Cheney and Halliburton. Note that I haven't reproduced the hyperlinks in the original text; most of them go to Factcheck's website which is down at the moment anyway.

    Kerry Ad Falsely Accuses Cheney on Halliburton

    Contrary to this ad's message, Cheney doesn't gain financially
    from the contracts given to the company he once headed.

    September 30, 2004

    Modified:September 30, 2004

    Summary

    A Kerry ad implies Cheney has a financial interest in Halliburton and is profiting from the company's contracts in Iraq. The fact is, Cheney doesn't gain a penny from Halliburton's contracts, and almost certainly won't lose even if Halliburton goes bankrupt.

    The ad claims Cheney got $2 million from Halliburton "as vice president," which is false. Actually, nearly $1.6 million of that was paid before Cheney took office. More importantly, all of it was earned before he was a candidate, when he was the company's chief executive.

    Analysis

    A Kerry ad released Sept 17 once again attacks Cheney's ties to Halliburton, implying that Cheney is profiting from the company's contracts in Iraq. That's false.

    The ad isn't subtle. It says, "As vice president, Dick Cheney received $2 million from Halliburton. Halliburton got billions in no bid contracts in Iraq. Dick Cheney got $2 million. What did we get?" And it implies that Cheney lied to the public when he said in a TV interview that "I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind."

    But as we document here, Cheney has insulated himself financially from whatever might happen to Halliburton. The Kerry ad misstates the facts.

    $2 Million

    To start, the $2 million figure is wrong. It is true that Cheney has received just under $2 million from Halliburton since his election, but nearly $1.6 million of that total was paid before Cheney actually took office on Jan. 20, 2001. Saying Cheney got that much "as vice president" is simply false.

    We asked Cheney's personal attorney to document that, and he did, supplying several documents never released publicly before:

    A Halliburton pay statement dated Jan 2, 2001 shows just under $147,579 was paid that day as "elect defrl payou," meaning payout of salary from the company's Elective Deferral Plan. That was salary Cheney had earned in 1999, but which he had chosen previously to receive in five installments spread over five years.
    Another pay statement dated Jan. 18 shows $1,451,398 was paid that day under the company's "Incentive Plan C" for senior executives. That was Cheney's incentive compensation -- bonus money -- paid on the basis of the company's performance in 2000. Cheney had formally resigned from the company the previous September to campaign full time, but the amount of his bonus couldn't be calculated until the full year's financial results were known.
    Cheney's personal financial disclosure forms, together with the pay statements just mentioned, show that Cheney has received $398,548 in deferred salary from Halliburton "as vice president." And of course, all of that is money he earned when he was the company's chief executive officer. Cheney was due to receive another payment in 2004, and a final payment in 2005.

    The Kerry ad isn't the only place the false $2 million figure appears. The Democratic National Committee also gets it wrong on their website. The dates of the Halliburton payments don't appear on Cheney's personal financial disclosure form from 2001, and the DNC assumed -- incorrectly as we have shown -- that all the 2001 payment were made after he took office.

    Deferred Salary

    The $398,548 Halliburton has paid to Cheney while in office is all deferred compensation, a common practice that high-salaried executives use to reduce their tax bills by spreading income over several years. In Cheney's case, he signed a Halliburton form in December of 1998 choosing to have 50% of his salary for the next year, and 90% of any bonus money for that year, spread out over five years. (As it turned out, there was no bonus for 1999.) We asked Cheney's personal attorney to document the deferral agreement as well, and he supplied us with a copy of the form , posted here publicly for the first time.

    Legally, Halliburton can't increase or reduce the amount of the deferred compensation no matter what Cheney does as vice president. So Cheney's deferred payments from Halliburton wouldn't increase no matter how much money the company makes, or how many government contracts it receives.

    On the other hand, there is a possibility that if the company went bankrupt it would be unable to pay. That raises the theoretical possibility of a conflict of interest -- if the public interest somehow demanded that Cheney take action that would hurt Halliburton it could conceivably end up costing him money personally. So to insulate himself from that possible conflict, Cheney purchased an insurance policy (which cost him$14,903) that promises to pay him all the deferred compensation that Halliburton owes him even if the company goes bust and refuses to pay. The policy does contain escape clauses allowing the insurance company to refuse payment in the unlikely events that Cheney files a claim resulting "directly or indirectly" from a change in law or regulation, or from a "prepackaged" bankruptcy in which creditors agree on terms prior to filing. But otherwise it ensures Cheney will get what Halliburton owes him should it go under.

    Cheney aides supplied a copy of that policy to us -- blacking out only some personal information about Cheney -- which we have posted here publicly for the first time.

    Stock Options

    That still would leave the possibility that Cheney could profit from his Halliburton stock options if the company's stock rises in value. However, Cheney and his wife Lynne have assigned any future profits from their stock options in Halliburton and several other companies to charity. And we're not just taking the Cheney's word for this -- we asked for a copy of the legal agreement they signed, which we post here publicly for the first time.

    The "Gift Trust Agreement" the Cheney's signed two days before he took office turns over power of attorney to a trust administrator to sell the options at some future time and to give the after-tax profits to three charities. The agreement specifies that 40% will go to the University of Wyoming (Cheney's home state), 40% will go to George Washington University's medical faculty to be used for tax-exempt charitable purposes, and 20% will go to Capital Partners for Education , a charity that provides financial aid for low-income students in Washington, DC to attend private and religious schools.

    The agreement states that it is "irrevocable and may not be terminated, waived or amended," so the Cheney's can't take back their options later.

    The options owned by the Cheney's have been valued at nearly $8 million, his attorney says. Such valuations are rough estimates only -- the actual value will depend on what happens to stock prices in the future, which of course can't be known beforehand. But it is clear that giving up rights to the future profits constitutes a significant financial sacrifice, and a sizeable donation to the chosen charities.

    "Financial Interest"

    Democrats have taken issue with Cheney's statement to Tim Russert on NBC's Meet the Press Sept. 14, 2003, when he said he had no "financial interest" in Halliburton:

    Cheney (Sept. 14, 2003): I've severed all my ties with the company, gotten rid of all my financial interests. I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and haven't had now for over three years. And as vice president, I have absolutely no influence of, involvement of, knowledge of in any way, shape or form of contracts led by the Corps of Engineers or anybody else in the federal government.

    Shortly after that, Democratic Sen. Frank Lautenberg released a legal analysis he'd requested from the Congressional Research Service. Without naming Cheney, the memo concluded a federal official in his position -- with deferred compensation covered by insurance, and stock options whose after-tax profits had been assigned to charity -- would still retain an "interest" that must be reported on an official's annual disclosure forms. And in fact, Cheney does report his options and deferred salary each year.

    But the memo reached no firm conclusion as to whether such options or salary constitute an "interest" that would pose a legal conflict. It said "it is not clear" whether assigning option profits to charity would theoretically remove a potential conflict, adding, "no specific published rulings were found on the subject." And it said that insuring deferred compensation "might" remove it as a problem under conflict of interest laws.

    Actually, the plain language of the Office of Government Ethics regulations on this matter seems clear enough. The regulations state: "The term financial interest means the potential for gain or loss to the employee . . . as a result of governmental action on the particular matter." So by removing the "potential for gain or loss" Cheney has solid grounds to argue that he has removed any "financial interest" that would pose a conflict under federal regulations.

    Conflict of Interest

    It is important to note here that Cheney could legally have held onto his Halliburton stock options, and no law required him to buy insurance against the possibility that Halliburton wouldn't pay the deferred compensation it owes him. Both the President and Vice President are specifically exempted from federal conflict-of-interest laws, for one thing, as are members of Congress and federal judges.

    And even federal officials who are covered by the law may legally own a financial interest in a company, provided they formally recuse themselves -- stand aside -- from making decisions that would have a "direct and predictable effect on that interest." And Cheney says he's done just that.

    Cheney says he takes no part in matters relating to Halliburton, and so far we've seen no credible allegation to the contrary. Time magazine reported in its June 7 edition that an e-mail from an unnamed Army Corps of Engineers official stated that a contract to be given to Halliburton in March 2003 "has been coordinated w VP's [Vice President's] office." But it wasn't clear who wrote that e-mail, whether the author had direct knowledge or was just repeating hearsay, or even what was meant by the word "coordinated," which could mean no more than that somebody in Cheney's office was being kept informed of contract talks.

    Indeed, a few days later it was revealed that Cheney's chief of staff Lewis "Scooter" Libby was informed in advance that Halliburton was going to receive an earlier contract in the fall of 2002 -- to secretly plan post-war repair of Iraq's oil facilities. But being informed of a decision after it is made is a far cry from taking part in making it. And according to the White House, Libby didn't even pass on the information to Cheney anyway.

    So to sum up, this Kerry ad's implication that Cheney has a financial interest in Halliburton is unfounded and the $2 million figure is flat wrong.

    Sources

    "Vice President Dick Cheney discusses the war with Iraq, the economy and other topics," NBC News "Meet the Press" 14 Sep 2003.

    Jack Maskell, "Official's Stock Options In and Deferred Compensation From a Corporation as a "Financial Interest" of an Executive Branch Official in Such a Corporation," Memorandum , American Law Division, Congressional Research Service, 22 Sep 2003.

    US Code of Federal Regulations,TITLE 5, CHAPTER XVI--OFFICE OF GOVERNMENT ETHICS, PART 2640--INTERPRETATION, EXEMPTIONS AND WAIVER GUIDANCE CONCERNING 18 U.S.C. 208 (ACTS AFFECTING A PERSONAL FINANCIAL INTEREST) 5CFR2640.103(b)

    Timothy J. Burger and Adam Zagorin, "The Paper Trail: Did Cheney Okay a Deal?", Time magazine, 7 June 2004: 42.

    Larry Margasak, "Cheney never heard plan to give work to Halliburton for rebuilding of Iraq," The Associated Press 16 June 2004.
  22. Senior Member
    jarhead's Avatar
    Stats
    5'7"  243 lbs.
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Age
    40
    Posts
    1,295
    Rep Power
    819
    Level
    29
    Lv. Percent
    12.06%
    Achievements Posting Pro

    Alot of the problem I have with Kerry's campaign is that they throw out somewhat vague accusations such as "we've lost X amount of jobs on bush's watch" or the defecit has grown "on their watch" etc. The past four years have been unlike any other in american history, with the sept.11 attacks and stuff. Of course something that catastrophic is going to have a huge impact on the econemy and such, which they don't take into consideration. I would think even a casual observer would pick up on this. Then when confronted by specific facts such as about the way they voted on issues over the last 30 years, they give absolutely no explanation or solid reason why all of the sudden kerry will be a solid, consistant leader. They just SAY he will. I disagree with many of bush's policies but I wouldn't vote for kerry just based on these things and the way he conducted himself after vietnam. Anyone who buddy's up to jane fonda is a scumbag in my book. I just don't trust the guy to do what's best for the country rather than what's politically popular at the time, which is sad because some of the issues he supports ( like stem cell research) which could help lots of people, I know bush will never address.
  23. Advanced Member
    VanillaGorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    893
    Rep Power
    588
    Level
    28
    Lv. Percent
    15.11%

    Cheney clearly won. While Edwards sounded good talking if you listened to what he said more times than not he didn't answer the questions. He also frequently had to use the time he had for a question to attack Cheney or offer a rebuttal to what Cheney said. On a few exchanges Cheney took him to the woodshed.
  24. Advanced Member
    VanillaGorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    893
    Rep Power
    588
    Level
    28
    Lv. Percent
    15.11%

    The other thing I noticed is Kerry and Edwards have a plan for everything but will never give you the details. Their plan for Iraq is to train Iraqi troops/ police fast but they won't say how they are going to do this. They are going to get international support from more allies. Yet the French and Germans have said they will not send troops no matter who is elected. Also, no one seems to want to talk about the UN oil for food scandal. More questions that need to be asked are How are they going to get the support of more allies when they have insulted the ones that are currently helping us, how are they going to work with Iraq when they basically called the Iraqi leader a puppet of the Bush administration, why didn't Kerry support the gulf war when we had a international coalition that Kerry says we need now. They are now saying( and that may change again) the war is a mistake but at the same time asking US troops to die for that war. With health care they seem to be proposing socialized medicine again but them of coarse is how are you going to pay for that and the answer is raise taxes.
  25. New Member
    black06's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    47
    Rep Power
    157
    Level
    6
    Lv. Percent
    59.62%

    Edwards won as most of the polls indicate...Cheney had no response for most of Edward's points and Edwards expressed himself much more clearly.
  26. Advanced Member
    Jeff's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  180 lbs.
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Age
    44
    Posts
    637
    Rep Power
    463
    Level
    20
    Lv. Percent
    79.75%

    Nah, that's only if you looked at the cbs pole. When I checked earlier today it look like all the poles picked Cheney.
  27. Doctor Science
    LakeMountD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    4,251
    Rep Power
    2556
    Level
    46
    Lv. Percent
    92.88%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    I think Cheney won hands down. It is very easy for someone like Edwards to criticize what the president and VP are doing without having all of the information. There is a ****load of sensitive material that is hidden from congress that only the president and his top advisors and generals are going to see and from watching the debates it seems kerry's side keeps saying how he would have done EVERYTHING different and how he would have complied with every one of the 9/11 councel's demands, etc. There is no way he can make that decision without all the facts. Also, I thought it was interesting that Cheney brought up Edwards' attendance record .
  28. New Member
    black06's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    47
    Rep Power
    157
    Level
    6
    Lv. Percent
    59.62%

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff
    Nah, that's only if you looked at the cbs pole. When I checked earlier today it look like all the poles picked Cheney.
    cbs, fox and nbc online polls all showed Edwards the winner by a large margin... abc polled the people actually at the debate, the majority of which were republican and a much smaller sample size than the other polls, so it's not surprising that Cheney won on the abc poll.
  29. Advanced Member
    Jeff's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  180 lbs.
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Age
    44
    Posts
    637
    Rep Power
    463
    Level
    20
    Lv. Percent
    79.75%

    Quote Originally Posted by black06
    cbs, fox and nbc online polls all showed Edwards the winner by a large margin... abc polled the people actually at the debate, the majority of which were republican and a much smaller sample size than the other polls, so it's not surprising that Cheney won on the abc poll.
    Hmmmm, have to check that out - they must have changed during the day.
  30. Senior Member
    NPursuit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Age
    37
    Posts
    1,782
    Rep Power
    1034
    Level
    32
    Lv. Percent
    85.43%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by black06
    Edwards won as most of the polls indicate...Cheney had no response for most of Edward's points and Edwards expressed himself much more clearly.
    I would love to know which debate you were watching. Cheney bitched slapped Edwards on foreign policy. I would give the domestic policy a draw with a slight edge to Cheney.
  31. Advanced Member
    Jeff's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  180 lbs.
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Age
    44
    Posts
    637
    Rep Power
    463
    Level
    20
    Lv. Percent
    79.75%

    Do the debates even mean a thing during this election? I don't know many people who are on the fence, they aren't going to change my mind in any way.
  32. New Member
    black06's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    47
    Rep Power
    157
    Level
    6
    Lv. Percent
    59.62%

    I don't see it either, but all sources keep saying there's a lot of swing voters out there and the pre & post Bush/Kerry debate numbers seem to support that idea





    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff
    Do the debates even mean a thing during this election? I don't know many people who are on the fence, they aren't going to change my mind in any way.
  33. Advanced Member
    Jeff's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  180 lbs.
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Age
    44
    Posts
    637
    Rep Power
    463
    Level
    20
    Lv. Percent
    79.75%

    Quote Originally Posted by black06
    I don't see it either, but all sources keep saying there's a lot of swing voters out there and the pre & post Bush/Kerry debate numbers seem to support that idea
    Its just a good job for the pollsters

    Bush 50%
    Kerry 50%


    ...
    margin of error +- 40%

    Lets face it, with only a month or so to go, if you don't know who you are voting for by now, you shouldn't be voting.
  34. Advanced Member
    VanillaGorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    893
    Rep Power
    588
    Level
    28
    Lv. Percent
    15.11%

    cbs, fox and nbc online polls all showed Edwards the winner by a large margin... abc polled the people actually at the debate, the majority of which were republican and a much smaller sample size than the other polls, so it's not surprising that Cheney won on the abc poll.
    What kind of polls are they? If they are push polls they are meaningless. Edwards absolutely did not win that debate. He answered very few questions that the moderator asked. When he was asked if he and Kerry were being naive because Germany and France will not send troops who ever is elect it, he ignored the question. That wasn't the only one either. Who ever though Edwards won was judging the debate on who has better hair.
  35. Banned
    Nullifidian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    1,741
    Rep Power
    0
    Level
    32
    Lv. Percent
    14.57%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Sometimes I wonder if you folks even know what Haliburton is. It is a contracting company. That's all. They aren't even doing any of the work in Iraq; what they do is subcontract work. That's it. There are HUNDREDS of companies out there that do the exact same bloody thing. Haliburton is big, that's all.

    The thing is, there was a rather large number of contracting companies that formed a conglomerate in hopes for a bid on the Iraq account. No such luck since Haliburton got a no-bid contract.

    Haliburton is not special except the fact that their profits = Cheney's profits.
  36. Professional Member
    size's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Age
    42
    Posts
    4,232
    Rep Power
    2270
    Level
    44
    Lv. Percent
    93.17%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by Nullifidian
    Sometimes I wonder if you folks even know what Haliburton is.
    I wonder the same thing about you. Try ignoring the "political connectedness" of halliburton and recognize it is one of (if not the largest) providers of oilfield services (energy,engineering,constructi on,etc). Halliburton has VERY few competitors that encompass what halliburton does. Competitors are basically Schlumberger, Bechtel, and Technip (of course there are some others though).
  37. Registered User
    kwyckemynd00's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"   lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Age
    31
    Posts
    5,324
    Rep Power
    2849
    Level
    52
    Lv. Percent
    88.84%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting ProPosting Authority

    Quote Originally Posted by NPursuit
    I thought Edwards sent them to factcheck.com not Cheney. Edwards did screw it up because it was suppose to be factcheck.org. I thought Cheney did a great job last night. I actually enjoyed last night's debate more than the presidential debate. Maybe Cheney should start speaking for Bush.
    Nah, Cheney sent people to FactCheck.org b/c he didn't have enough time to dispute all of the democrats allegations against himself and Haliburton in the 30 seconds response time. Edwards was attacking Cheney about Haliburton and Cheney referred to FackCheck.org so that people can get a better understanding of what really is going on.
  38. Registered User
    kwyckemynd00's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"   lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Age
    31
    Posts
    5,324
    Rep Power
    2849
    Level
    52
    Lv. Percent
    88.84%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting ProPosting Authority

    Quote Originally Posted by Nullifidian
    Sometimes I wonder if you folks even know what Haliburton is. It is a contracting company. That's all. They aren't even doing any of the work in Iraq; what they do is subcontract work. That's it. There are HUNDREDS of companies out there that do the exact same bloody thing. Haliburton is big, that's all.

    The thing is, there was a rather large number of contracting companies that formed a conglomerate in hopes for a bid on the Iraq account. No such luck since Haliburton got a no-bid contract.

    Haliburton is not special except the fact that their profits = Cheney's profits.
    Honestly, this whole "Republicans love big Business" thing is just ****ing retarded. It demonstrates just how out of touch (and plain ignorant if you ask me) most leftist/liberal democrats are. What ****ing sense does it make for a political party--who needs votes to win elections--to favor only rich people and these large rich corporations? Why in the world would the favor only the top 2% (as the democrats often claim) when they need about 51% or so to win votes!!!! "We republicans like to make normal people poor and rich people richer, please vote for us!" Seriously, how ****ing retarded is that? Please evaluate what you regurgitate when it comes from the left; if you do so, it probably won't make any sense and you'll keep from looking...well...kinda like an ass.

    It's plain and simple:
    Republicans are for big business and don't want to place ridiculous amounts of constraint on them b/c they create jobs.
    Democrats are against big business because it makes some people rich while they want everybody's income to be more "equal" regardless of what work they do or how hard they worked to earn their money!
    Republicans want true equality of races (i.e. get rid of affirmative action, stop profiling by race for school, gov't aid, etc. forms).
    Democrats think minorities are stupid and have to give them lower standards and free money so they never have to work and the dems get votes.
    Republicans want illegal immigration because they're greedy bastards and want cheap labor.
    Democrats want illegal immigration because they can get more of them on welfare and other government programs so that they can get more voters to vote for them so they keep their freebies!
    Republicans want tax breaks for everyone!
    Democrats think the more you make, the more we take. Eventually everyone's equal, right? I think it's a crime that somebody--a Dr. for example--will spend 12 years in post HS education (that number includes residency) working his/her ass off, just so that the ****ing socialists/communists in the democratic party can steal their money and give it to those who chose not to work hard and choose to live off of food stamps and welfare checks ('cuz it's free). Ppl. get to drop out of school, have kids like crazy, collect gov't freebies, and steal others' money all because....why?
    Democrats want us to keep dumping money into public education, but the money is going to teachers who aren't performing and are just living off of their respective unions!
    Republicans want to treat education like a business. Make is as efficient as possible, producing the best product, all while using as little waste (financially) as possible.
    Democrats want gay marriage and push it via undercutting our legal system using POS lawyers and liberal crack-head judges to push their agenda w/out the people's vote or approval.
    Republicans (true republicans) think it should be left of for state governments to decide, but too many religious fanatics are in charge, so we're not seeing this at the highest levels (bush).
    Democrats pander to their lawyer special interests, screw hard working doctors over, drive up insurance costs, and eventualy the consumer eats it.
    Republicans want to limit the awards for malpractic suits (because tons of them are unsubstantiated to begin with) and actually do something to stop this ridiculous fiasco from worsening.

    I personally dont identify as "republican" but since everybody likes two party politics there's a party I can "tolerate" and a party I "loathe". You can figure out which is which.

    Speaking of tolerance, the liberal democrats idea of tolerance is nothing short of facism. Not only do you have to "tolerate" you have to "accept" "love" and "keep your mouth shut about"...
  39. Senior Member
    NPursuit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Age
    37
    Posts
    1,782
    Rep Power
    1034
    Level
    32
    Lv. Percent
    85.43%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by kwyckemynd00
    Nah, Cheney sent people to FactCheck.org b/c he didn't have enough time to dispute all of the democrats allegations against himself and Haliburton in the 30 seconds response time. Edwards was attacking Cheney about Haliburton and Cheney referred to FackCheck.org so that people can get a better understanding of what really is going on.
    Yup my bad. I realized I was incorrect yesterday.
  40. Board Supporter
    DieTrying's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Age
    31
    Posts
    909
    Rep Power
    12960
    Level
    27
    Lv. Percent
    74.33%

    Great ****ing post man!! Couldn't have said it better myself.

    Quote Originally Posted by kwyckemynd00
    Honestly, this whole "Republicans love big Business" thing is just ****ing retarded. It demonstrates just how out of touch (and plain ignorant if you ask me) most leftist/liberal democrats are. What ****ing sense does it make for a political party--who needs votes to win elections--to favor only rich people and these large rich corporations? Why in the world would the favor only the top 2% (as the democrats often claim) when they need about 51% or so to win votes!!!! "We republicans like to make normal people poor and rich people richer, please vote for us!" Seriously, how ****ing retarded is that? Please evaluate what you regurgitate when it comes from the left; if you do so, it probably won't make any sense and you'll keep from looking...well...kinda like an ass.

    It's plain and simple:
    Republicans are for big business and don't want to place ridiculous amounts of constraint on them b/c they create jobs.
    Democrats are against big business because it makes some people rich while they want everybody's income to be more "equal" regardless of what work they do or how hard they worked to earn their money!
    Republicans want true equality of races (i.e. get rid of affirmative action, stop profiling by race for school, gov't aid, etc. forms).
    Democrats think minorities are stupid and have to give them lower standards and free money so they never have to work and the dems get votes.
    Republicans want illegal immigration because they're greedy bastards and want cheap labor.
    Democrats want illegal immigration because they can get more of them on welfare and other government programs so that they can get more voters to vote for them so they keep their freebies!
    Republicans want tax breaks for everyone!
    Democrats think the more you make, the more we take. Eventually everyone's equal, right? I think it's a crime that somebody--a Dr. for example--will spend 12 years in post HS education (that number includes residency) working his/her ass off, just so that the ****ing socialists/communists in the democratic party can steal their money and give it to those who chose not to work hard and choose to live off of food stamps and welfare checks ('cuz it's free). Ppl. get to drop out of school, have kids like crazy, collect gov't freebies, and steal others' money all because....why?
    Democrats want us to keep dumping money into public education, but the money is going to teachers who aren't performing and are just living off of their respective unions!
    Republicans want to treat education like a business. Make is as efficient as possible, producing the best product, all while using as little waste (financially) as possible.
    Democrats want gay marriage and push it via undercutting our legal system using POS lawyers and liberal crack-head judges to push their agenda w/out the people's vote or approval.
    Republicans (true republicans) think it should be left of for state governments to decide, but too many religious fanatics are in charge, so we're not seeing this at the highest levels (bush).
    Democrats pander to their lawyer special interests, screw hard working doctors over, drive up insurance costs, and eventualy the consumer eats it.
    Republicans want to limit the awards for malpractic suits (because tons of them are unsubstantiated to begin with) and actually do something to stop this ridiculous fiasco from worsening.

    I personally dont identify as "republican" but since everybody likes two party politics there's a party I can "tolerate" and a party I "loathe". You can figure out which is which.

    Speaking of tolerance, the liberal democrats idea of tolerance is nothing short of facism. Not only do you have to "tolerate" you have to "accept" "love" and "keep your mouth shut about"...
  

  
 

Similar Forum Threads

  1. Great Debate: Glutamine worth the money??
    By YellowJacket in forum Supplements
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 06-25-2004, 08:22 PM
  2. Replies: 37
    Last Post: 11-28-2003, 10:04 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-25-2003, 12:11 AM
  4. Fat Label Debate
    By YellowJacket in forum Weight Loss
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-16-2003, 04:15 PM
  5. Awesome 'Whos Fault' Debate
    By YellowJacket in forum Weight Loss
    Replies: 56
    Last Post: 02-14-2003, 02:25 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Log in
Log in