I guess I knew starting this thread you could attempt to thwart debate with your quest for links. In any case, if you look at my first post, I asked for links and some lovely Pixies provided them. Read them and then tell me again I can't substantiate my claim.

That was never my point in starting the thread. I debated starting it but I just got miffed thinking about Cheney's profits.

I certainly didn't start this thread to begin a link-pissing contest with you. AGAIN, I'd ask you to provide me with links that DISPROVE my claims. Show me the links that show Cheney is starving because of this war. YOU show me links that Halliburton ISN'T profiting from this war. Man, you're the biggest wet blanket I've ever "met".

In order:

Jude30,

You give your location as Midwest. I live in Maryland. This means that we share the common heritage that people are presumed innocent until proven guilty. In this instance, it seems that you expect the accused to prove his innocence by providing what you think you need to make that assessment.

Steph,

I commend your clairvoyance in knowing that I might be so rude as to ask you to substantiate your claims. You were correct, and remain so. I believe that wyndhy was referring to your posts as accusing Mr. Cheney of immoral behavior. I do think it appropriate to back up such accusations with persuasive data, even if you do not.

In general:

If either of you are interested in securing the information you presume exists and further presume will support your positions, you may begin your efforts by following this link, which points you to where you may get it. This is not unusual; reviewing the tax returns of those covered by ETHICS IN GOVERNMENT ACT has been done by others in the past.

Note please that I am not saying that Mr. Cheney is innocent of the behavior of which you accuse him. I do find it odd that the immoral behavior of which he is accused has managed to slip past those in a position to exploit it – Congress - while being so generally known that supporting evidence is unnecessary.

The first time I recall such vitriolic loathing was when I was working in Jeddah. One of my co-workers was a Brit who loved to hate the current PM, Margaret Thatcher. Once, after a particularly impressive rant, during which he accused her of precipitating the Falklands War, I asked him if he thought she liked seeming people in misery. He paused for a moment, and then said “Yes”. At least he was consistent.

The last time I recall such irrational fulminations was when President Clinton was impeached. Fortunately fewer than 67 votes could be mustered in the Senate trial.

I am persuaded that, based upon your unsubstantiated claims of immoral behavior and “guilty until proven innocent” positions, and that when these surprising positions were identified, they were claimed to be acceptable, there exists no reasoned response to your positions. As mere facts of law seem only to be inconveniences, law seems insufficient. As requests for facts are considered a hindrance to this discussion, it leaves it “fact free”.

I am unsure what contribution I might be able to make to a fact free discussion unencumbered by the inconvenience of lawful behavior.

Congress has has no will to "exploit" any accusations of wrongdoing in the current administration until this past year, & even now the opposition majority is so slim as to preclude any real attempt to do so. Witness the feeble gasps of outrage concerning the Valerie Plame incident, the firing of attorneys for political reasons, and the endless list of other wrongdoings by the Bush/Chaney dictatorship that have gone unchallenged.

Anyone who doubts what I'm saying here is encouraged to look into the book Takeover ...if you're not pissed-off & terrified yet, as Yoda said, "You will be..."

scotzoidman,

Oh Puhlease! It incendiary remarks of this nature which make it difficult to discuss difficult, but important, issues reasonably.

why does that term "dictatorship" upset you so, jseal?

wyndhy,

... why does it not upset you?

... when it is a false statement?

... when it is used to describe your homeland?

... does it not tend to polarize opinion?

... does not democracy depend upon communication between the citizens?

... do is not discourse needed?

... would you be more comfortableliving in one than in a democracy?

... why does it not upset you?

i asked you first but ok.

because it's not personal
because it's not true or false, merely facetious
because my homeland allows the expression of various opinions about governance.

(i missed the additions in the edit. to address the added questions...)

it does not polarize dicussion, anyone may add any opinion at any time, whether it's the opposite of earlier stated opinions or not

communication between citizens is not challenged or even defined by the word dictatorship, leadership is

discourse needed for what?

no

becasue it's not a personal attack

Halliburton pulled record profits last year. And the year before. And the year before that.

Mad profits. Obscene amounts of money.

Does Vice President Cheney own or has he received stock in Halliburton? Dunno. I don't have the time or the resources to try & track down his disclosure forms or tax returns, public record or not.

If someone cares enough to investigate and it's discovered that they did receive no bid contracts that could & should have gone to other companies, and profitted directly from that work...and as a result, so did the VP, well that should be addressed.

I am well aware that no bid contracts can be a nefarious agreement between "buddies" and can be struck to eliminate fair competition, but they also can take place between parties that understand the quality of work and fairness of price, and willingness & ability to mobilize and get the job done in a minimal time frame.

I admit to skipping the bidding process and just calling a contractor that I've done work with before & just telling them "I need you to do a job...get over here as soon as you can. And ballpark me a figure just so I know." Should I invite three parties to bid so I can be assured of a fair price? Yes. Have I been burned by going with a low bidder? Absolutely. When it is something that requires immediate action...I skip the bidding and go with a good source.

That having been said, I don't know which is the case...only that each scenario can happen.

Jude30,

So far, we have someone claim that facts are not necessary for a discussion, another who suggests that the accused is guilty until innocent, a third that asserts that the U.S. is in the grips of a dictatorship, and a fourth who claims that false statements are neither true nor false.

Sir, you were right on the money with your prediction! :thumbs:

WildIrish,

Thank you for the reasonable points. :)

jseal, you asked for my thoughts on why i wasn't offended, i gave them to you honestly and politely, which is to say with less sarcasm and more forthrightness than you afforded me. there's no reason to be insulting.

wyndhy,

But insultingis not insulting, merely facetious

well then, i stand corrected.

wyndhy,

Let us recognize that reasonable people can disagree.

i recognize that anyone can disagree, reasonable or not. i can also recognize when i'm being insulted and belittled.

jseal,

I'm assuming you're referring to me. Again, I ask you to GIVE ME LINKS showing me Cheney is not profiting from Haliburton AND Haliburton is not profiting from this war.

You've asked me for links, I told you I was concerned about the economy. It's ridiculous that the US is trillions in debt yet, from WHAT I UNDERSTAND, Haliburton is reaping benefits. People have already provided us with Haliburton links in this thread.

Please SHOW ME PROOF that Haliburton is not profiting from the Iraqi war AND please SHOW ME PROOF that Dick Cheney is not involved with Haliburton.

Steph,

Now those would fall under the "guilty until proved innocent" observation.

Dude, you ask me for links. I'm asking for yours. I'm giving thoughts on something that's been proven as fact in links already provided in this thread. You're playing Devil's Advocate for whatever reason but I'm calling tit for tat here. I'm not here to argue things that are more boring than a VCR instruction manual (to paraphrase a Pixie).

I'm concerned that the US VP is profiting from war. If you are to contribute to this thread, I'd ask that you cease with the "innocent until proven guilty" rhetoric and show me that Cheney is not a war profiteer. Show me the non-money, as it were.

You have children. Are you not concerned about the economy they're inheriting?

When this administration finally leaves in a year, what is going to happen?

Steph,

No fooling?

Puhlease yourowndamself...clearly you didn't bother checking out the link to the book in my post...the Bushco administration has set up the return of the Imperial Presidency that was knocked down after the Nixon years (which Dick Chaney was player in), & has set some dangerous precedents that not only affect us now, but could lead to frightening consequences from future presidents as well...

And I've tried being reasonable my whole life, & it got me nowhere...from now on, I'm a muckracker & a shitstirrer, & consequences be damned...

scotzoidman,

Good luck!

I'm still waiting for links that would disprove Cheney has financially benefited from this war. You can talk in circles but I would like to hold you to this point. You attack my POV but won't show me any evidence to the contrary and your tone leaves a lot to be desired.

Scotz I think they interviewed the author of the book you linked on NPR earlier this week. He had a lot of interesting things to say about our VP, and the amount of time he's been working on increasing Executive power.

The best part though will be when a Dem is in power again and that President uses every power the Reps gave the Executive branch and the right will have noone to blame but themselves for the unprecedented power given to the Pres.

Innocent until Guilty is a right you have in a court of law. This dose not apply to the court of public opinion.

well put, boog.

:withstupi

"court of public opinion"...maybe it dates me, that I remember some fellow named "Adlai" coining that phrase :shrug:

scotzoidman,

Yes sir. I believe that it happened during the Cuban Missle Crisis.

Cheney probably put all his holdings into his wife's name......lol

........and no, I have no links or sites of reference to prove this.

It's just my opinion! ;)

As I understand things, typically when elected officials take office, they put all their investments in a trust, supposedly so they won't be involved in day-to-day dealings with their own stocks/bonds/etc...what I've never understood is how they're supposed to forget what companies they were vested in when they put it in the trust, & are we supposed to believe that they won't act in their own self-interest during their term of office...

During a slow period at work on the weekend, I was watching last season's episodes of Weeds. An outgoing city councillor was explaining the MOs of other councillors and threw out one line that made me snicker: He overcharges like Halliburton.

:)

Yes, we're supposed to believe that. And it happens just many times as it doesn't happen. What it boils down to is integrity. A person of character and integrity will not abuse the position of trust they are in (beit political office or otherwise).

I am in a position of trust that could be abused for my personal wellbeing. I can steer business to vendors that would be more than happy to offer "finder's fees" or discounted work on my house in exchange for executing contracts with them. That I abide by the procedures established by the board of directors is less because it is what others expect of me than because it's what I expect of myself. I may live in a state where the governor and the mayors of a number of large cities felt free to take advantage of their power but that doesn't mean I have to. We all make choices in this world and at some point are called upon to live with them.

So at the end of the day, if Halliburton's profits are the result of an abuse of power linking back to VP Cheney then he should be held accountable...and all shareholders will suffer.

I feel so bold as to say that all of us here at Pixies would agree with that statement? But none of us here are capable of locating a smoking gun of that caliber so we're left criticizing opinions and arguing semantics.

Careful, dude, people may think you're not such a dumbass at large as you claim to be ;)

Sadly, there are smoking guns all over the place, but, as the saying goes, "There are none so blind, as they who will not see"...I'm thinking a new title is in order, "The Teflon Dick"...

I'd love that!


Wouldn't have to use lotion. :hot:





What can I say? My flashes of brilliance cum in spurts, then I'm right back to being a dumbass. :p

WildIrish,

Yes.

I'm still waiting for you to respond to my post to you, sir.

Well, we do know the wonderful criminal Dr. Hsu gave $100K to Hilliary ... but, in the interest of fair play she's giving back $20K. I wonder where I can get a deal like that. :shrug:

I also wish I could get the secret service to protect me and pay the cost of my mortgage for the privilege.

Let's face it, I don't trust any of our politicians from either major party. I figure if they're honest ... they won't last. :(

As for getting the Secret Service protecting you all you have to do is get your spouse elected President. Unless you'd like to change over 100 years of tradition/law the President's spouse has always enjoyed the service.

Secondly concerning them charging the Secret Service rent and getting their mortgage paid for... maybe you should learn how to use Snopes.com

Link shows what you think you know you don't really know.

still, there is much money wasted in government excess. intense secret service for ex-presidents might be a bit too much, and guarding empty houses is way, way, way too much.

I'm still interested in Cheney's profits from this war. I figure it's a wee bit more than a $100K.