My Gawd! By Gawd! Read this and give me a believable reason why this guy shouldn't be removed from office.
Link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/../../larisa-alexandrovna/lizzie-cheney-the-pride_b_39398.html
I never liked him.
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
I never liked him.
Me neither, wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him. I always thought Bush was just a figurehead with the name to get elected; Cheney was the real one calling the shots. Can't wait to see the both of them leave office.
Cheney may resign. Just a rumor, but Norah "Noron" O'Donnell is a blue-chip WH flack. You never know.
She's asking Andy Card and Panetta...careful responses. (//%22http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/01/23/will-cheney-resign/%22)
Reality of this whole thing is actually hilarious at this point. OK, who the hell would be Che Knee's replacement? Let him resign, go for instant Bush impeachment, and let Pelosi take command.
"McCain Blames Cheney for Iraq War"
"Said McCain: "The president listened too much to the Vice President... Of course, the president bears the ultimate responsibility, but he was very badly served by both the Vice President and, most of all, the Secretary of Defense... Rumsfeld will go down in history, along with McNamara, as one of the worst secretaries of defense in history."
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2007/01/23/mccain_blames_cheney_for_iraq_war.html
Pretty pathetic....
And to think Cheney was originally paired with Bush to give the pair more experience and credibility...
Bush tried to surround himself with the "A Team" and got the "F Team." A bunch of people who may have initially looked competent on paper or did a good interview, but should be working at McDonalds. Cheney should've left with Rumsfeld.
Now if we had Face, Murdoc, Hannibal, and BA, the war would've been over long ago.
Because he needs to do time in jail. But Bushtard will pardon him. This is incredible stuff even while we have known Cheney was the man behind the curtain.
Pay particular attention to Hardball!
http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?g=05a1123d-f3e7-46b1-b6af-d0bb2bb99f72&f=00&fg=copy
A defenseless defense.
And this stuff! I am not a huge fan of Blitzer, but the interview yesterday was incredibly revealing. In it I see Dick Cheney coming unglued.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/01/20070124-3.html
"Bottom line is that we've had enormous successes, and we will continue to have enormous successes"
The man has too many heart meds messin' up his fat head.
And them we have these goons....
http://newsbusters.org/node/10403
Blitzer, you are not to ask trouble making questions! He should work for TulsaWorld then?
"Daffy Does Doom"
Maureen Dowd
"Delusional is far too mild a word to describe Dick Cheney. Delusional doesn't begin to capture the profound, transcendental one-flew-over daftness of the man."
http://select.nytimes.com/2007/01/27/opinion/27dowd.html?th&emc=th
"Has anyone in the history of the United States ever been so singularly wrong and misguided about such phenomenally important events and continued to insist he's right in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary?"
You will not see this fine editorial opinion in TulsaWorld...
In a rare television interview, Maureen Dowd described Dick Cheney as "barking mad". I loved that phrase and it seems appropriate.
I'm not surprised there is very little outrage about this on TulsaNow Forum.
To those of you brave few who do reveal your outrage, I say thank you.
"Cheney's key role in leak case detailed
A former aide testifies in Libby's trial that the vice president directed the effort to discredit a CIA agent's "
husband.http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-na-libby26jan26,1,493513.story?coll=la-headlines-frontpage&ctrack=1&cset=true
Makes you wonder what kind of ethics our society has remaining.
Yes, Ax Man... there are a few things that should bring outrage and they do not...
I have noticed there was no mention of what the fellow that lives in Crawford Texas......no not George......the other fellow.. did at the Texas Gubernatorial party the other day.
Party Texas Style (//%22http://www.austinist.com/archives/2007/01/19/perrys_vision_for_texas_ted_nugent.php%22)
Would you believe the Vice President refuses to divulge names of who works in his office?
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/012162.php
"Wouldn't you say the public is entitled to know?"
Let me recommend a good book to everyone: State of Denial by Bob Woodward. The book really makes me see Bush as a puppet of Dick Cheney. The relationship between the US gov't. and Halliburton makes me sick. "Cheney directly profits from the Iraq war and even shoots a man during his term as Vice President of the United States." Now that's a headline you won't see on Fox News...
quote:
Cheney directly profits from the Iraq war
Really...I'd like to see your "evidence" on this one.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Cheney directly profits from the Iraq war
Really...I'd like to see your "evidence" on this one.
"While recent news coverage has speculated on the post-war reconstruction gravy train that corporations like Halliburton stand to gain from, this latest information indicates that Halliburton is already profiting from war time contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars.
Cheney served as chief executive of Halliburton until he stepped down to become George W. Bush's running mate in the 2000 presidential race. Today he still draws compensation of up to a million dollars a year from the company, although his spokesperson denies that the White House helped the company win the contract. "
Source: http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=6008
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=HAL&t=5y
He has gobs of shares......his family has made huge profits since he became creep president puppeteer....
Haliburton btw has been the prime motivator for alot of this misery.
[clip]Haliburton btw has been the prime motivator for alot of this misery.[end clip]
Yes but they are uniquely qualified to handle situations such as this...
Creating misery is but a small portion of the much larger picture...
quote:
Originally posted by perspicuity85
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Cheney directly profits from the Iraq war
Really...I'd like to see your "evidence" on this one.
"While recent news coverage has speculated on the post-war reconstruction gravy train that corporations like Halliburton stand to gain from, this latest information indicates that Halliburton is already profiting from war time contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars.
Cheney served as chief executive of Halliburton until he stepped down to become George W. Bush's running mate in the 2000 presidential race. Today he still draws compensation of up to a million dollars a year from the company, although his spokesperson denies that the White House helped the company win the contract. "
Source: http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=6008
Nice website. Care to post something from a source that doesn't have an axe to grind?
And this is proof of what...that he is a shareholder in Halliburton stock...absolutely ground breaking.[}:)]
Anyone who believes that the US went into Iraq to make Halliburton added profits needs to back away from the KoolAid, the red dye #6 is rotting your brain.
Here is a better question.
If Cheney did something so impeachable, why aren't the likes of John Conyers, Maxine Waters, Ted Kennedy and their ilk ramming impeachment down our throats right now.
I'll give you two choices. Either your assertions are garbage or your side doesn't have the guts to sack up and bring the charges; neither bodes well for your claims.
"Meanwhile Dick Cheney's 2001 financial disclosure statement, states that the Halliburton is paying him a "deferred compensation" of up to $1million a year following his resignation as chief executive in 2000. At the time Cheney opted not to receive his severance package in a lump sum, but instead to have it paid to him over five years, possibly for tax reasons.
The company would not say how much the payments are. The obligatory disclosure statement filled by all top government officials says only that they are in the range of $100,000 and $1million. Nor is it clear how they are calculated."
This tells you all you need to know. They paid him DEFERRED COMPENSATION as severance for work already done...THAT'S WHY IT'S CALLED DEFERRED COMPENSATION!
Any other brain busters?
Hey I realize I'm just speculating here. And "my side" is independent. I don't think there was definitely some unethical move by Cheney that warrants impeaching, but you have to admit, it looks fishy. I can't stand the Republican "holier than thou" approach to politics. The Republicans want everyone to trust everything they say as unquestionable facts, and refuse to fully explain the concerns of millions of Americans. They don't want people to raise concerns unless it supports their agenda.
Great! Another "independent" who conveniently only bashes Republicans... [B)]
Can you please tell me what looks fishy? Sounds like your political proclivities are running away with your common sense and rationality.
Is treason a new right wing value?
I would bash any political organization that acted the way the Republicans have during the current administration.
What's Fishy: The vice president of the United States is the former CEO of Halliburton, which overcharged the federal gov't $61 million for contracts in Iraq. During the period in which the overcharge occurred, Cheney was still receiving monetary compensation from Halliburton and held unexercised stock options. It seems like a conflict of interest to me for Cheney to have retained these stock options after Halliburton was awarded contracts in Iraq. Isn't he partially responsible for the decision to continue the war in Iraq, and thus extend Halliburton contracts with the US gov't? The worst part is that he denied having a continued relationship with Halliburton during the war. Why would he deny that? Even if he is innocent, he brought this on himself.
And I find it ironic that you brought up my political proclivities. If your political proclivities are so un-biased, how can you turn a blind eye to this issue?
quote:
I would bash any political organization
Why do I not feel convinced...
quote:
The vice president of the United States is the former CEO of Halliburton, which overcharged the federal gov't $61 million for contracts in Iraq.
Evidence please. Do me a favor and don't link to some hack website. Do a little research and you will see that it was Kuwait who put the screws to us which led to overprice gas, and a couple a nefarious employees who, when the overcharges were discoverd, were promptly fired.
The spoils mainly went to Kuwait not Halliburton, but you're an
Independent (TM) and already knew that didn't you?
quote:
During the period in which the overcharge occurred, Cheney was still receiving monetary compensation from Halliburton and held unexercised stock options. It seems like a conflict of interest to me for Cheney to have retained these stock options after Halliburton was awarded contracts in Iraq. Isn't he partially responsible for the decision to continue the war in Iraq, and thus extend Halliburton contracts with the US gov't? The worst part is that he denied having a continued relationship with Halliburton during the war.
Maybe you are unfamiliar with executive compensation packages...let's revisit this issue again.
Why was he getting money from Halliburton? By accepting deferred compensation he already work to receive, and by hold unexercised stock options that he also received as deferred compensation for work he had already done. How is that remotely illegal?
If he was an acting member of their board....maybe, but you're way out in left field, but....hey... you're an
Independent (TM) and a clear thinker who wouldn't be swayed by political motives now would you?[B)]
quote:
If your political proclivities are so un-biased, how can you turn a blind eye to this issue?
I never claimed to be un-biased, and I never turned a blind eye, in fact, I would venture to say that I've done a fair bit more research on the topic than you have, which is why you sound completely uniformed on the subject.
quote:
Originally posted by PRH
I despise Republicans and their family values with all of my heart.
I like lamp! Any other golden nuggets of wisdom Mr. Burgundy?
Once again, I said it looks fishy. That's all. Unlike you, I'm not attempting to say that I know more about this issue than those who are currently investigating it. I understand executive compensation, that's not the issue. The issue is Cheney's denial of financial ties. Hack website, would CBS News (//%22http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/26/politics/main575356.shtml%22) be considered a hack website? There are stories about this all over the internet and TV. What are the details of Cheney's stock options? How do we know what he could possibly stand to gain from extending Halliburton contracts? Maybe nothing, but I expect Cheney to explain himself.
quote:
Once again, I said it looks fishy. That's all.
And once again, no it doesn't. Saying it over and over again doesn't make it true.
quote:
Unlike you, I'm not attempting to say that I know more about this issue than those who are currently investigating it. I understand executive compensation, that's not the issue.
Hmmm... seems like everything is pointing in that direction, other than your hopeless fart in the wind that it could possibly have nefarious intent.
quote:
The issue is Cheney's denial of financial ties. Hack website, would CBS News (//%22http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/26/politics/main575356.shtml%22) be considered a hack website? There are stories about this all over the internet and TV.
There are also stories all over the internet about UFOs and Bigfoot. And CBS...do I have to mention the Dan Rather debacle...
quote:
What are the details of Cheney's stock options?
Well, first and foremost, they are probably none of your business. Second, the SEC highly regulates stock transactions and insider dealing would be considered a crime yet I don't hear them getting involved.
quote:
How do we know what he could possibly stand to gain from extending Halliburton contracts?
Maybe nothing, but I expect Cheney to explain himself.
He had no more to gain than the rest of the last 3 presidents (including CLinton) who offered no bid contracts to Halliburton as well.
As far as an explaination, I'd tell you to stay the hell out of my personal finances, but that's just me. If someone wants to bring charges, I say bring it on. Until then...go jump in the lake.
Cheney denied having financial ties with Halliburton when he in fact did have financial ties. Period. Millions of Americans find that to be somewhat unsettling.
Published on Wednesday, January 31, 2007 by The Progressive
Impeachment by the People
by Howard Zinn
http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0131-25.htm
"The time is right, then, for a national campaign calling for the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney"
quote:
Originally posted by perspicuity85
Cheney denied having financial ties with Halliburton when he in fact did have financial ties. Period. Millions of Americans find that to be somewhat unsettling.
Denied what financial ties? That he was a former executive, or that he had unexercised stock options? What does it matter if he had unexercised stock options, they don't grant you a controlling interest or sway over the board.
Most importantly, Cheney is a US citizen and has NO obligation, just as you have no obligation, to expose our personal finances for the world to see. They would get that information from me with a court ordered subpoena and not a second before. You do believe in a fundamental right to privacy don't you, or do you think those rights only apply to aledged terrorists?
As to the contention about millions of Americans...there are supposedly "millions" of Americans who believe that 9/11 was a conspiracy, according to the 9/11 loon crew.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Most importantly, Cheney is a US citizen and has NO obligation, just as you have no obligation, to expose our personal finances for the world to see. They would get that information from me with a court ordered subpoena and not a second before.
You and I are not the vice president of the United States. I do firmly believe in the right to privacy, but Cheney is required to file a confidential financial disclosure report. While people such as you or I have no business reading it, members of the US Office of Government Ethics do.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
As to the contention about millions of Americans...there are supposedly "millions" of Americans who believe that 9/11 was a conspiracy, according to the 9/11 loon crew.
So is it your contention that most Americans approve of Cheney's performance, and the Bush adminsistration's performance? Are you just writing off everyone who is criticizing the Bush administration as liberal extremists? According to CNN, Bush's approval rating is 34% and disapproval rating is 63%. And no, I don't think it is very likely that 9/11 was a huge government conspiracy.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
You do believe in a fundamental right to privacy don't you, or do you think those rights only apply to aledged terrorists?
What are you attempting to suggest here?
quote:
You and I are not the vice president of the United States. I do firmly believe in the right to privacy, but Cheney is required to file a confidential financial disclosure report. While people such as you or I have no business reading it, members of the US Office of Government Ethics do.
You're just not going to give up are you, you cute little
Independent (TM). Maybe this article (//%22http://www.factcheck.org/article261.html%22) will finally shut you up.
quote:
And no, I don't think it is very likely that 9/11 was a huge government conspiracy.
Well congratulations you're only half nuts.
quote:
So is it your contention that most Americans approve of Cheney's performance, and the Bush adminsistration's performance? Are you just writing off everyone who is criticizing the Bush administration as liberal extremists? According to CNN, Bush's approval rating is 34% and disapproval rating is 63%. And no, I don't think it is very likely that 9/11 was a huge government conspiracy.
Non-sequitor argument, attempted misdirection and completely irrelevant information. Try again.
Better question yet for P-85. What politician who is in a national office doesn't have ties to a corporation of one sort or another prior to coming to or after leaving Washington? The Cheney/Halliburton angle is very over-blown.
Are you really naive enough to believe that corporate contributions to political campaigns are not some sort of compensation? Dig around the different government ethics sites and I dare you to find more than a small handful of legislators who aren't taking money from anyone other than individuals.
The way Democrats hammered on GOP donors prior to the mid-terms you would have thought that Democrats never take money from special interests or corporate entities looking for favors.
What in the hell is so fascinating about Halliburton? There are far more companies who do business with no-bid contracts with the government. Name some companies with the same scope and range of capabilities and competence as Halliburton who have been shut out of the Iraq contracts.
It's not just overblown its complete BS as evidenced by the factcheck.org (//%22http://www.factcheck.org/article261.html%22) article. Maybe a little fact checking is something our Independent (TM) should do more of before posting on this forum...
It is entirely likely that Cheney did not in fact commit any unethical or illegal act. He did lie to the media, not under oath. But you have to admit, that lie made him look guilty of something. Instead of explaining that any ties he had were deferred compensation only, he dodged the issue completely. I don't think he needed to go into great detail about his personal finances, but a simple explanation to call off the dogs would have been a good idea. When people lie, they lose credibility. When footnotes and asterisks are explained up front, people earn credibility. Any business executive should understand that.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Non-sequitor argument, attempted misdirection and completely irrelevant information. Try again.
Perhaps it was a bit of a non-sequitor, but my response was to the conspicuous implications of your previous statement. And since we're on the topic of fallacies, you yourself have overattributed my arguments as being consistent with the entire Democratic platform, instead of focusing on the one issue at hand. Based on your overattribution, you concluded that I was in agreement with supposed 9/11 conspiracy-theorists, and thus, committed the fallacy of
argumentum ad Hominem- circumstantial, a.k.a. undermining a claim by calling attention to the irrelevant circumstances of the one making the claim. And yes, in case you're wondering, I had to look up the name of
argumentum ad Hominem- circumstantial, because I could not remember the specific name of the fallacy.
As for me giving up, it's not too likely.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Better question yet for P-85. What politician who is in a national office doesn't have ties to a corporation of one sort or another prior to coming to or after leaving Washington? The Cheney/Halliburton angle is very over-blown.
Are you really naive enough to believe that corporate contributions to political campaigns are not some sort of compensation? Dig around the different government ethics sites and I dare you to find more than a small handful of legislators who aren't taking money from anyone other than individuals.
The way Democrats hammered on GOP donors prior to the mid-terms you would have thought that Democrats never take money from special interests or corporate entities looking for favors.
What in the hell is so fascinating about Halliburton? There are far more companies who do business with no-bid contracts with the government. Name some companies with the same scope and range of capabilities and competence as Halliburton who have been shut out of the Iraq contracts.
No argument there, Conan. What I have been posting about is one specific incidence in which Cheney lied about financial ties.
quote:
It is entirely likely that Cheney did not in fact commit any unethical or illegal act.
Hmmm...you sound remarkably less confident than you did a few days ago. First it was he's DEFINITELY did it, later it was FISHY, now it's "entirely likely" he didn't...give you another couple of days and you MIGHT actually get the right answer.
quote:
He did lie to the media, not under oath.
Not according to Factcheck.org.
quote:
But you have to admit, that lie made him look guilty of something. Instead of explaining that any ties he had were deferred compensation only, he dodged the issue completely.
This supposed guilt is wishful thinking on your part...did you even bother to see that he ASSIGNED all of his profits from the stock options to CHARITY?
quote:
I don't think he needed to go into great detail about his personal finances, but a simple explanation to call off the dogs would have been a good idea. When people lie, they lose credibility. When footnotes and asterisks are explained up front, people earn credibility. Any business executive should understand that.
He didn't lie, but you can't get that through your thick skull...it's no wonder OJ was able to get a "not guilty" verdict with people walking around who have reasoning skills like the ones that we've seen on this thread...
"What If Vice Pres. Gore Had Outed a Covert CIA Specialist in Terror Weapons? Why is There a Cheney-Bush Double Standard? Gore Would Never Do Such a Thing. Bush and Cheney Did -- And Have Endangered the National Security of the United States of America."
I'd think he'd be lynched!
http://www.pensitoreview.com/2007/02/05/what-if-gore-had-outed-secret-agent/
"It is apparent that Vice Pres. Cheney will get away with jeopardizing our national security without punsihment, or even a mild rebuke."
"It's just Cheney being Cheney."
QuoteOriginally posted by iplaw
Hmmm...you sound remarkably less confident than you did a few days ago. First it was he's DEFINITELY did it, later it was FISHY, now it's "entirely likely" he didn't...give you another couple of days and you MIGHT actually get the right answer.
Quote
What are you talking about? I never said definitely. I said he lied to the media, which according to CBS News, is true. When people lie, I generally think they have something to hide. I admitted that there is no hard evidence of wrongdoing. I bring up one little fact, make a joke about Fox News, and in Oklahoma I'm a flaming liberal. Why do we have such a bipolar political environment?
quote:
What are you talking about? I never said definitely. I said he lied to the media, which according to CBS News, is true.
Are you blind or just wilfully ignoring reality? Factcheck did your work for you and debunked the alleged "lie." Game, set, match...nothing left to debate.
quote:
When people lie, I generally think they have something to hide. I admitted that there is no hard evidence of wrongdoing. I bring up one little fact, make a joke about Fox News, and in Oklahoma I'm a flaming liberal. Why do we have such a bipolar political environment?
Go peddle your sob story somewhere else. If you bring conspiracy garbage into a debate expect to get smacked. Go protest Cheney with altrusim suffers, he needs the company.
I have another question for you Independent (TM). Why are you so hell bent on pushing this issue, which is a farce, but I have yet to hear any outcry from you about Sandy Berger and his theft of classified documents? I thought you were an Independent (TM)?
There are no conspiracies. Just Conmen.
"Tell Congress to Impeach Cheney First"
http://www.democrats.com/peoplesemailnetwork/73
"Vice President Cheney was a key architect of the illegal and disastrous invasion of Iraq. Behind the scenes, Cheney was in charge of assembling bogus "evidence" of weapons of mass destruction, both by "stovepiping" evidence from paid liars and by visiting the CIA to personally intimidate analysts who disputed those lies. In public, Cheney uttered the Administration's most egregious and bald-faced lies, especially about Iraq's non-existent nuclear program. When his nuclear lies were exposed by Ambassador Joe Wilson, Cheney led the criminal campaign to attack Joe Wilson, including "outing" Wilson's wife Valerie Plame to reporters. By "outing" Plame, Cheney destroyed Plame's covert network which was fighting the spread of weapons of mass destruction in Iran and elsewhere. Cheney's former chief of staff, Scooter Libby, committed perjury and obstruction of justice to keep Cheney from being indicted for his role in outing Plame. Cheney adamantly refuses to take any responsibility for the war or for his crimes. To hold Cheney accountable - and to deter future Vice Presidents from committing similar crimes - Congress must begin impeachment proceedings against Vice President Cheney immediately."
There was more loaded language in the first paragraph of the Huffington article than I care to read. To quote the author
quote:
These are not facts; rather they are opinions twisting basic facts.
The facts presented, that Cheney paid people to lie or that the evidence was a lie at all, are not only disputed, but not held as the truth by most circles. If any administration blatantly lied, especially if their paid people to do so, and there was actual evidence of such... impeachment would be inevitable and a criminal prosecution would surely follow.
The cry of war-profiteer is as old as war itself. Hurrah for the military industrial complex and all the horrors it is responsible for. If only it werent for evil corporations we could all dance naked under apple trees and live in peace and understanding. Damn corporations.
This is akin to me starting a discussion about Hillary Clinton by posting an article from Stophillarypac.com.
Move along, nothing to see here.
"If any administration blatantly lied..."
They did just that. And the consequences have been huge.
"impeachment would be inevitable and a criminal prosecution would surely follow"...what you are saying is, "because congress will not move ahead on impeachment, these 'people' obviously have not committed an impeachable offense."
"The cry of war-profiteer is as old as war itself."
There is so much fraud connected to this wars profiteering it goes to show that the current executive branch are incompetents.
"Hurrah for the military industrial complex and all the horrors it is responsible for. " If you were being sarcastic for the right reasons I could accept your point of view. But this institution as predicted by President Eisenhower has manipulated this country into a terrible defeat through it's shear size and influence.
"If only it weren't for evil corporations we could all dance naked under apple trees and live in peace and understanding. Damn corporations." More obnoxious sarcasm. Sorry you do not know peace and are incapable of understanding.
"Move along, nothing to see here."
Yes, there is plenty to see here. You just gotta read between the lines!
btw, I can't find the first paragraph you speaketh about....Lizzie is a witch....Dickie should be impeached.....first.
I honestly can't believe I am debating this again... feels like 2003.
Anyway, what was the blatant lie that the Administration told that serves as an impeachable offense? They made a decision based on the best evidence available and acted on it. This intelligence was accepted by the United Nations, Britain, Russia, and other nations. The dispute at the time was not if Saddam was in violation of the UN accords, but if anything should be done about it. Iraq violated nearly every aspect of the agreement reached after Gulf I. I refuse to re-debate the merits of the war from a current perspective, as at this point we can easily look back and say the course we chose or the way we chose to execute it was in error.
In any event, a lie entails an intent to deceive, the actual evidence only indicates incompetence. If incompetence were a reason to remove a person from office the hallowed halls of D.C. would be blissfully silent.
While there has indeed been some profits made from this war, they are of no concern to me. The only concern would be if I believed the war was started with a desire to profit these companies. I have no concern for the profits made by Ford or Lockheed in World World II. Nor for the money Colt makes from selling rifles to the US Army. There are jobs that need to be done and if someone can make money doing those jobs, so be it.
Now, it is important to distinguish profits in the sense above and FRAUD and MISMANAGEMENT. If the allegations of mismanagement and fraud are true, all profits should be disgorged from offending contractors. However, as it stands, Hulliburton is the only company in the world capable of performing many needed functions. The base closures and downsizing of the 1990's increased competition between the 3 primary providers, and the winner of that competition now holds all the contracts. That does not give them an excuse for fraud, but does explain why they are still on the job.
Per your incompetence comment, it is well known that Dick Chaney is a very competent man. You may not like the ends to wit this is used, but one does not excel in business and rise to the office of vice president by being a morons. Likewise, the call of 'idiot' has plagued G.W., largely on account of his lackluster speaking ability. But a brief inquiry into his actually academic prowess reveals his GPA bested his much renowned competitor Kerry at their mutual alma mater. They may be incompetent in running a hegemonal power, but it is not for lack of intelligence.
And on to the sarcasm. It was meant to highlight the error of blaming inanimate objects for the worlds problems. The entire notion of a military industrial complex is so archaic in the post-industrial world it is nearly laughable. The VAST majority of businesses in the United States have suffered as a result of this war, not profited. The loss of employees to wartime duties, the loss of worldwide goodwill, the increase in governmental consumption or needed materials, have all hurt most industries. Especially in a service oriented economy; war provides no benefit.
The so-called Military Industrial Complex could account for no more than 3.5% of our national GDP. That's how much we spend on military in a year. In an era controlled by neither the military, nor heavy industry, it is unlikely it wields this kind of influence. The century old theory of the military industrial complex is as much a part of history as the Industrial Revolution that spawned it. I have read NOTHING in economics that gives credence to this alleged beast.
Also, I said nothing of me personally not knowing peace nor understanding. I referred to "all," which would incorporation the vocal class of people that seem to think corporations meet in a secret place, known as "the meadows," to plot hot best to corrupt the world, keep the man down, and generally be evil. Lest we forget, it was the invention of the corporation that fostered most of the security, wealth, and amenities you enjoy today and the treasured institutions they fund. For some reason, success makes you evil in the eyes of some (Microsoft - an integral part in ushering the the computer age. Wal-mart - saving American consumers Billions of dollars a year. Exxon - providing cheap oil for your SUV. Halliburton - feeding US soldiers world wide.)
--------------------------------------
Now a quick lesson in loaded language:
quote:
Something is troubling Elizabeth Cheney, the other daughter of the Lockheed-Halliburton syndicate.
First, the entire sentenced is premised on the incorrect notion that the author knows the thoughts of the subject. Second, a person cannot be the child of an inanimate object. Third, this sentence contains an inferred allegation in the Lockheed and Halliburton are not associated. Finally, the word syndicate holds a negative connotation.
quote:
Although the problem troubling our dear Lizzie is not her conscience, because that would require first that she have a conscience.
"Dear Lizzie" is condescending in that the author neither holds the subject to be dear nor is on a first name basis with her. In addition, inferring she has no conscience is a direct insult.
quote:
No, what is troubling Lizzie is the lack of courage and an interest in losing she ascribes to those who are opposed to her daddy's war.
This sentence inserts thoughts into her head. Assigns her an interest to the war. Uses the word "daddy" in an attempt to belittle her for having a powerful father. And accuses her father of having, in essence, a pet war - an accusation insulting to the subject directed at a third party.
This paragraph is about as objective as if I were to write:
"Something is troubling Hillary Clinton, the other spouse of the Little Rock WhiteWater embezzlement. And no, it isnt Slick Willie having sex with another intern and perjuring himself before the grand jury. That would require the lesbians to care who her farce husband had sex with. No, what is troubling Hillary is the difficulty she is having usurping the presidency as swiftly as she was able to force her incompetent daughter into a New York brokerage house." Gee, that wasnt loaded at all.
-------------------------------
I dont even like the sitting president. I think he is a well intentioned man that is acting on what he believes is right and I do not subscribe to the notion that he either set out to deceive nor that he is part of some grand conspiracy. I just think his beliefs are misplaced, his policies unwise, and his execution poor.
But an article such as this is not likely to spark honest debate. It was written with the intention of inflaming readers and preaching to the choir while alienating dissent. Would a link to a Rush Limbaugh article be fruitful? Not likely.
You and the artist need to hook up based on your common fodder for verbosity.
BTW, "In any event, a lie entails an intent to deceive, the actual evidence only indicates incompetence " is bs. A lie can also be purposeful omission of a fact or detail to sway the truth. You can be competent and play with the evidence.
" Dick Chaney is a very competent man" is absurd.
"The VAST majority of businesses in the United States have suffered as a result of this war, not profited. " Prove that!
"The so-called Military Industrial Complex could account for no more than 3.5% of our national GDP." No way. It's what % of our national spending?
I could go on but a discussion with you would be wasteful. Words and framing do count.
Please, work on your critical reading skills:
"[A] purposeful omission of a fact or detail to sway the truth" would fall within my stated definition of a lie. That would include AN INTENT to deceive. Competently playing with evidence with the intent to deceive would be a lie per the stated.
Per Marriam-Webster
quote:
Main Entry: 3lie
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): lied; ly·ing /'lI-i[ng]/
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English lEogan; akin to Old High German liogan to lie, Old Church Slavic lugati
intransitive verb
1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2 : to create a false or misleading impression
transitive verb : to bring about by telling lies <lied his way out of trouble>
Hate to break it to you, but I dont just make crap up and spit it out.
Dick Chaney is highly competent. The man has served in many offices public and private. He has amassed great wealth for himself and garnered the respect of international business. One does not accomplish such things being 'as stupid as a stupid does' outside of movies. Period.
Per the military industrial complex: common sense should tell you that in a service based industry depending on international relations; a war, particularly an unpopular war, is a hindrance to business. Furthermore, in a logical or scientific argument the burden of proof lies with the person attempting to prove the existence of something not he who wishes questions it. To prove the non-existence of something is nearly impossible since the stated object is assumed to... not exist. Otherwise, you must believe that there is indeed unicorns deep in the woods - because it is impossible to definitively prove there is not.
Military spending is 3.5% of GDP. Again, I chose that number for a reason, Im not just making **** up. 3.5% would indicate an approximate average of our GDP spent on military in recent history. That is historically very low for these war-like United States (peak of 39% and a low of 3% since the outbreak of WWII):
http://www.truthandpolitics.org/military-relative-size.php
Thus, my definition of a lie was spot on - no bs as you so boldly indicated. Though I attempted to give you some indication of the fallacy of the military industrial complex the burden of its existence is actual on you. And the maximum impact of the alleged secret society is around 3.5% as indicated by the federal budget. So unless you have an alternate theory for how Chaney rose to the highest ranks of commerce and government in the world, I think I've pretty well covered all of your concerns.
I would like to point out I have done so without resorting to calling any of your assertions bs, using your name for world play, nor operating under the pretense that the discussion which you willingly participate has somehow become wasteful. At the same time I have been able to use logical arguments and actual sources to make my point.
Now move along, there is nothing else to see here.
Don't feed the troll cannon...he's immune to logical discourse and coherent thought.
Perhaps, but I still operate under the (probably mistaken) assumption that people can be spoken to logically. I am often persuaded this is not the case with individuals, but since its a slow day at work I suppose its worth a try.
If nothing else, it feels good to draft a logical, sourced, and well presented argument every now and then. Hell, I dont even really like this administration... but disparage them with merit, there's plenty there.
Hee hee...spoken like a true attorney. Aox is drive-by bomb thrower, just like his buddy Tim Huntzinger. I may disagree with Waterboy, Rico, and Rwarn, but at least their posts are more than 15 words followed by a link to ___________.... (Insert favorite loony blog)
I wish you well on your future posts with him, but I think frustration is the inevitable outcome...
"Hate to break it to you, but I don't just make crap up and spit it out." Spit and crap it is....
Guess my priorities are way different than yours. Again, what % of our budget is being squandered by this war? Who cares if it's ONLY %3 of our GDP.
Cheney is the drive by bomb thrower. He got where he got through power grabbing and deceptive manipulation. He's a perfect broker for government contracts.
Good. My approach does work. it frustrates all you Bush extremists.
Not a drive by bomb thrower.
More like an efficient throat cutter....
"Now move along, there is nothing else to see here." Proof of you being a repeating bore.
Did someone fart in here? I smell something, but I can't see anything...
^call mommy into your room to check your underwear......
Actually all my arguments are logical and sourced. So crap they are not.
As military spending is only 3.5% of our GDP, that would be the extend of the military industrial complex. The amount of money spent in dollar terms is not reflective of any activities impact on our society, % of total is a much better picture. If, as it now appears, you wish to change the argument to 'we are spending too much money in Iraq' you may do so now.
More ad hominem attacks on Cheney, you dont like him and feel the need to disparage him because a man you dislike is highly successful. Got it.
As mentioned previously, Im not even a fan of this administration let alone a "Bush extremist," nor am I particularly frustrated. What, might I ask, do you really hope to accomplish with your 'approach?' Certainly you dont think you are going to either gain a better understanding nor sway another's opinion, shall I assume your approach is intended to be malicious and ignore you as wiser men do?
My closing line has become a theme in this thread, meant to indicate the repetitive nature and ineffectiveness of your argument. Basically, its an insult to your inability to raise a valid point. Im sorry if you were properly insulted by it.
I'm telling you Cannon, the view is so much better when you put trolls on ignore. Aox is obsessed with liberalism so much that it appears he/she/it has little else to do than Google as many liberal web sites and articles as possible.
Aox must be a trust fund baby or government clerk with that much spare time.
CF. Come now. ^"your inability to raise a valid point..." is a lie.
Go back to the "picture on the bill" thread and be your irrifutable self.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
I'm telling you Cannon, the view is so much better when you put trolls on ignore. Aox is obsessed with liberalism so much that it appears he/she/it has little else to do than Google as many liberal web sites and articles as possible.
Aox must be a trust fund baby or government clerk with that much spare time.
Some days it's that way mister "I put Aox on ignore"....
Then again, some of us have the intelligence to multi task.
btw, googling liberal web sites is not the way to find information quick. Any slow lawyer knows that....
Back on topic. First Cheney should be forced out.
Libtard links....
Keep your eye on the ball- impeachment now!
by Carol Wolman
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_carol_wo_070213_keep_your_eye_on_the.htm
"There are lots of issues that need attention- global warming, torture, the media buildup for attacking Iran. Impeachment trumps them all. Get rid of the bad guys, and we can tackle the rest of it. Since Congress won't impeach, they're bad guys too. We the People are on our own."
and
The Libby trial makes impeachment easy, and obligatory
by Carol Wolman
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_carol_wo_070214_the_libby_trial_make.htm
"Bush and Cheney had just used manufactured evidence to persuade the American public that there was reason to launch a pre-emptive war against Iraq. They were "fixing the facts around the policy" as the famous Downing Street memo put it. (A recent Pentagon study confirms this.) "
This trial and verdict will just disappear from public view. Except for people who go out of their way to follow it, almost nothing is being said on the airwaves, except a passing mention that the trial is moving to the deliberation stage. Without outrage and examination, who's going to care? A handful of people on the net like me?
Tomorrow "Breach" opens in theaters. What happened to that spy who betrayed US secrets to enemies? No doubt he's in a Club Fed white collar prison. His wife still draws on his retirement! We're paying her for his "work" ---after she and hers profited off of his treason! No spotlight on her...no outrage.
More of the same... no longer worth a reply.
Please post when you have thoughts of your own or you wish to actually debate an issue.
XoXo,
cannon_fodder
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
More of the same... no longer worth a reply.
Please post when you have thoughts of your own or you wish to actually debate an issue.
XoXo,
cannon_fodder
Must have struck a nerve, I heard three plops in the toilet, but don't have a clue what they looked like.
How can you read my posts and say that. Fodder for obnoxious odors?
I find it strange how you posties constantly attempt to redirect a thread.
The intent of this site is not for flaming or trying to post as many links to op/ed pieces as possible. Stay on topic and tone it down.
Sorry, I don't think so. Unless you are referring to the instigators.
You must have missed the stabs by Conan the barbaric. Unless you are allied with him.
Silly editoad....
You must be begging to be banned if that was a knock about the Editor...keep it up!!!!
Come to think of it, what does Dick Cheney and the republican party stand for today that the American people stand behind? The party is in worse shape now than they were when we heralded Nixon from office and opened the door for Cheney to squeeze in the oval office the first time.
I just found out Scooter was Marc Rich's lawyer at the time Clinton pardoned Rich. So don't expect outrage when Libby gets the same.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
You must be begging to be banned if that was a knock about the Editor...keep it up!!!!
That would be censorship which I am certain you support.