Common knowledge for those who get Michael Moore's daily email, maybe.
as I posted above, someone else's interpretation of how something looks doesn't make it a fact.
Nothing you posted above offers any proof that Cheyney personally gains anything financially from the [no debate here] completely shady contract awards going to Halliburton.
If you want to suggest he's getting paid under the table or illicitly, then that's another situation.
Ken'sPen Wrote:I'd rather not go looking for support for every statetment I make, when I am saying things that everyone should know.
Then don't make the statement.
And no "everyone" should not know these things because not everyone tracks Cheyney's business dealings or 5 year old Bush comments like it's the morning box scores. Be realistic.
Galt,
I posted a report which clearly states he still has financial ties to halliburton, and the quote where he claimed he doesn't.....
if that doesn't constitute a lie to you......
He also owns STOCK OPTIONS.....
I hope you know how they work, and how the performance of the company directly corresponds to the value of said options.......
really if you are this thick, I am wasting my time.
Did you even fucking read what you posted? Holy shit!
He owns stock options that he has said 100% of the proceeds will go to charity. Ergo, the options are worthless to him. Therefore, he has no financial interest.
So that is his rationale as to how he has no financial interests. He said as much in the information you even supplied.
It would only be a lie if he does not follow through with his pledge to donate to charity. You can't call something a lie because you assume he's not going to follow through.
Are you really this retardedly partisan that you can't see the difference
Galt Wrote:Are you really this retardedly partisan that you can't see the difference
Quote:. The CRS Report explicitly rejects this dubious line of reasoning, finding that financial ties continue despite those steps.
yes I read the report.... did you?
that CRS was one guy's opinion. You took it to mean it was an unbiased, collective, congressional decision.
You were wrong.
Apologize.
Now quit being a sucker and actually use some of your own gray matter to determine your political philosphy. You are no different than what you hate about those mindless drones of Rush, Hannity, and O'Reilly who take OPINIONS as fact.
Galt,
you have Cheney's promise of a charitable donation as your sole reason to say he has no financial ties...
despite recieving a deferred salary,
and retaining a fortune in stock options.....
one of us is playing the partisan hack.... and it's not me.
History and Mission
Congress created CRS in order to have its own source of nonpartisan, objective analysis and research on all legislative issues. Indeed, the sole mission of CRS is to serve the United States Congress. CRS has been carrying out this mission since 1914, when it was first established as the Legislative Reference Service. Renamed the Congressional Research Service by the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970, CRS is committed to providing the Congress, throughout the legislative process, comprehensive and reliable analysis, research and information services that are timely, objective, nonpartisan, and confidential, thereby contributing to an informed national legislature.
but Galt likes to refer to it as "one guy's opinion".
I have not been able to find this study anywhere, and my quick search before posting that earlier today, I found nothing from this CRS other than that one democrat Laudenberg. I saw nothing from anyone else having anything to do with the production of this document. I figure that if this were a real congressional organization, a Democrat would not be chair as they aren't in power.
After more research, this organization is a federally funded external organization. Which does lend credence to its potential as an "unbiased", and while the fact that the study was commissioned by a Democrat doesn't inherently mean it can be dismissed (though imagine if Dick Armey had commissioned a study and said that Cheney was in the clear; what would your opinion be?) I also have never heard about CRS until today, and have not been able to find one single CRS publication, that was not heavily critical of the Bush administration.
Ken is hanging his proof that Cheney lied about this specific instance because he is assuming that Cheney will go back on his word.
As no logical person can say that deferred compensation would reasonably qualify as "financial interests", the only question is about the options.
If he sells and they are not donated to charity; he lied. if he sells and they are donated to charity; he didn't lie. But until he sells, you can't say he lied one way or the other.
For the record, I think he will not sell until he gets out of office, upon which time, he will keep the proceeds.
But the fact remains that this thread has been Ken throwing out accusation after accusation
Galt,
don't be a twat.....
When Clinton said "I did not have sex with that woman" he lied.....
and I never tried to defend him for the specifics of his statement, that a BJ or a Cigar does not constitute sex....
Cheney made a very specific statement in black and white terms, so to go back now and cite a promise to dontate the proceeds is just partisan hackery.
But it's not in retrospect.
The jist of his comment was that he has no financial ties to Haliburton because he planned on giving any proceeds to charity.
That is a completely logical and undeniable removal of any financial ties. It's not like he said "I have no ties" and then 6 months later someone said "but you have options and deferred compensation" and he said "ohh, ummm, well, OK, I'll give it to charity then"
go away you fucking hack.....
I'd have no problem accepting that answer if he provided the caveates at the time...
but don't speak in absolutes and then quibble nuance later.
It's the same bullshit they did with WMD and everything else....
make pronouncements of Fact that are crystal clear, and then open the flood gates of doubt after the fact....
suckle on the RNC teat to your hearts delight....
but our discussion is over.
"LA LA LA I AM NOT LISTENTING TO WHAT YOU ARE SAYING LA LA LA EVERYTHING I READ THAT IS NEGATIVE ABOUT CHENEY OR BUSH OR ANY OTHER 'RIGHT WINGER' IS COMPLETELY ACCURATE AND ABOVE QUESTION OR REPROACH"
Yeah, i'm not really interested in defending Cheney...the guy is a boob....however he hasn't technically lied yet....he's being decietful, but he hasn't lied.
Wow, shocker....a politician spinning the facts, i'm outraged.
it's hard to catch Cheney in a lie...
cause he's rarely seen in public....
his main work in ensuring the war would happen was his unprecedented trips to Langley, beating on the CIA to provide policy friendly findings.
sources for what?
that he took numerous trips to Langley which is unprecedented for a VP,
or what he was doing there....
what he was doing was pure conjecture on my part...
based only upon common sense and anecdotal evidence....
Just like we will never know for sure what pressure Bolton was putting on to gain policy friendly results...
because the whitehouse wouldn't release the documents, and he was backdoored as a recess appointment.
theres no evidence of wrongdoing in either case.
I disagree with you there....
intelligence should be run in a bi partisan way.
Let the report be issued, then spin it however you want... but putting pressure on agents to slant a report to match policy is VERY wrong.
Keyser,
was bush telling the truth when he recently cited a thwarted terrorist attack on Los Angeles?