| Author |
Message |
    
Maple Man
Citizen
Username: Mapleman
Post Number: 340
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 10:13 am: |     |
Halliburton has demonstrated itself through shady accounting and yes, overcharging, to have questionable corporate ethics. Just because people criticize that corruption, doesn't make them socialists. As Tom R. says, it's a straw man argument.
And you're right, Halliburton is effectively a monopoly in many of their businesses. And the corruption we're seeing is not an unexpected result of how a monopoly does business. For that reason, they should be getting extra oversight. And until Halliburton can prove that they've cleaned up their act, they deserve the criticism they receive. |
Nohero
Citizen
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 3864
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 10:16 am: | |
"... and Drudge made it a story today"
Thanks for once again proving my point. |
singlemalt
Citizen
Username: Singlemalt
Post Number: 604
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 10:18 am: | |
Nohero - I made it clear it came from Drudge? What's your point? He's still turning orange.  |
Madden 11
Citizen
Username: Madden_11
Post Number: 382
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 11:28 am: | |
How can you have a rational discussion with someone who thinks Dick Cheney has no finanical ties to Halliburton? It's mind-boggling, really...this is a perfect example of the kind of denial that has kept Bush in this race.
But back to more important issues, like photographs that have been improperly color-balanced. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 2498
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 12:34 pm: | |
MSNBC and CNN aren't color balanced either in their footage, I've noticed.
As far as I know, Cheney has a pension from Halliburton. What other type of nefarious ties does he have with that company besides a pension. |
Crazyguggenheim
Citizen
Username: Crazyguggenheim
Post Number: 675
Registered: 2-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 12:34 pm: | |
agent orange? |
singlemalt
Citizen
Username: Singlemalt
Post Number: 606
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 12:39 pm: | |
LOL. Good one Madden. |
JMF
Citizen
Username: Jmf
Post Number: 39
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 12:58 pm: | |
cjc, not a pension.
A salary deferral, and stock options.
Weather you like Cheney or not... If Halliburton does well, he will do well. There is a financial tie there. |
sportsnut
Citizen
Username: Sportsnut
Post Number: 1460
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 1:29 pm: | |
Jesus Christ can we put this financial ties BS to rest.
He has "ties" to halliburton. His deferred compensation arises out of an obligation halliburton had to him at the time he left. The amount was offered as either a lump-sum or a series of deferred payments. He chose the latter (supposedly for tax purposes). He also took out an insurance policy to ensure that he would receive his payments even if Halliburton declared bankruptcy. So does he have a tie? Yes, he does. Is that tie influenced by how halliburton does financially. Absolutely not. The amounts were fixed at the time he left. If halliburton earns a gazillion dollars he will get no more than he's entitled to.
As for his stock options - I've read that he has already agreed to donate the after tax proceeds to charity if and when he exercises them. Again, does he have a tie? Yes. Will he personally profit from it? Probably not.
Next talking point please.
Look it up. |
Madden 11
Citizen
Username: Madden_11
Post Number: 387
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 1:35 pm: | |
Just out of curiosity, is the connection between Cheney and Halliburton more or less tenuous than the connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden? |
jjkatz
Citizen
Username: Jjkatz
Post Number: 252
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 1:38 pm: | |
Come on Madden, there is incontrovertible evidence that Saddam Hussein knew who Osama bin Laden was and even what he looked like. |
Madden 11
Citizen
Username: Madden_11
Post Number: 388
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 1:41 pm: | |
Come on Madden, there is incontrovertible evidence that Saddam Hussein knew who Osama bin Laden was and even what he looked like.
From outward appearances, that puts him one up on Bush. |
sportsnut
Citizen
Username: Sportsnut
Post Number: 1462
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 1:46 pm: | |
Once again since you've been proven wrong you change the topic.
Since there are no connections between halliburton and Cheney which would benefit Cheney financially I'd say that your comparison is ridiculous on its face. Any connection between Saddam and Osama, no matter how slight, would be more than the connection between Cheney and halliburton.
|
Robert Livingston
Citizen
Username: Rob_livingston
Post Number: 119
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 1:50 pm: | |
So Cheney doesn't benefit financially from Halliburton anymore. The whole situation stinks worse than the oil field fires they're overcharging to put out. |
Kenney
Citizen
Username: Kenney
Post Number: 538
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 2:01 pm: | |
and back on MOL, Rob Livingston finally gets to use his 'haliburton zinger' all his friends thought was so funny after they drank their 6 pack of wine coolers. |
Madden 11
Citizen
Username: Madden_11
Post Number: 389
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 2:14 pm: | |
Once again since you've been proven wrong you change the topic.
You haven't proven anything, and I'm not changing the topic. I'm only pointing out that Cheney himself may not be the best arbiter of what defines a "connection," especially when one definition over another serves a political or financial purpose of his.
Since there are no connections between halliburton and Cheney which would benefit Cheney financially I'd say that your comparison is ridiculous on its face.
I wonder if you actually believe that. If so, it's stunningly naive. The fact that Cheney hasn't personally endorsed a check with the Halliburton logo up top and the words "Bribe money" in the Memo line means there's no connection?
I suppose there's no chance Cheney will end up back on the board at Halliburton once he's out of office, either. I suppose he doesn't have any friends, business contacts, or campaign contributors still working there. Talk about ridiculous.
I will say that the line about his giving the stock sale proceeds to charity is priceless. It sounds like someone caught shoplifting: "But Officer, I was GOING to pay for it! I just put it in my pocket to hold it." If he's so hot on charitable giving, why not sell the stock now, rather than forcing these mysterious charities to wait for this windfall? |
JMF
Citizen
Username: Jmf
Post Number: 40
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 2:26 pm: | |
sportsnut...When did Cheney agree to donate the money to charity? As far as I can see, he promised to forfeit his stock options in 2000, in 2003 he still had them but was promising to donate them... now he has signed them over to some charity (Do you know what Charity?)
He didn't forfeit the options - why?
Why was it reported in 2000 that he could not give them to Charity...what was that about?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A47617 -2000Aug17¬Found=true
When the Charity cashes the options at a higher price, Halliburton will benifit with a tax deduction.
There was a financial tie between them. We don't know everything that has been agreed with the 2 parties, and they have both been accused of less than ethical practices in the past.
The administration is trying to get rid of any connections between them. |
sportsnut
Citizen
Username: Sportsnut
Post Number: 1463
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 2:35 pm: | |
look madden you can play six degrees of separation all you want to try to justify your conspiracy theories - its what a lot of you liberals do best.
Does serving as VP preclude Cheney from being selected for the BOD of Halliburton? I didn't know that it did.
Who's being naive or should I say paranoid? People in similar positions (former board members)run in the same circles. Many people in positions of power wind up on the Boards of companies they spoke up for and vice versa. You make it sound like Cheney is the only one and I've already proven that he has no direct financial interest which was the original argument, lest you forget.
Clearly you've never been in a position to receive options since you know nothing about them. Do you know for certain that the options are not under water? Do you know enough about his tax situation to know whether it makes sense to do so now? Do you know if the options have restrictions on them? There are a host of potential reasons and to speculate on why he makes his financial decisions is just plain stupid. |
JMF
Citizen
Username: Jmf
Post Number: 41
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 2:44 pm: | |
"Who's being naive or should I say paranoid"
It would be naive to think that Cheney has no financial interest in Halliburton.
You may be able to "prove" that he doesn't due to a charity, but as of 2003 at the very least Cheney still had the options that he promised he woudl forfeit in 2000. |
Madden 11
Citizen
Username: Madden_11
Post Number: 390
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 2:54 pm: | |
Sportsnut, what does a clear appearance of impropriety have to do with conspiracy? You're just trotting out that well-worn conservative chestnut to try to discredit and marginalize some facts that don't reflect well on the Vice President.
Nor is it "six degrees of separation." He was the CEO, for Pete's sake. That's one degree, if that. I'm well aware that people in power run in the same circles and help each other out all the time. People commit murder all the time, too...that don't make it right.
Nor is my personal knowledge of stock options relevant. How on earth am I supposed to know the specifics of Dick Cheney's tax situation? The truth is, I know just as much about it as you do. The difference is, your cognitive dissonance allows you to ignore when something looks suspicious, while I'm willing to question it. |
singlemalt
Citizen
Username: Singlemalt
Post Number: 608
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 3:15 pm: | |
LOL. Good one Madden. You're so smart. |
Michael Janay
Citizen
Username: Childprotect
Post Number: 864
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 3:54 pm: | |
Instead of forfeiting them he decided that putting them into a blind trust with the proceeds directed to charity would be of more benefit to everyone.
Why just give them up? Now charity gets any profit (if there is any). In a blind trust arrangement, Cheney has no control over their exercise.
|
JMF
Citizen
Username: Jmf
Post Number: 42
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 3:57 pm: | |
Janay... yeah.. that must be it.
Cheney is so charitable.. (1% of income on average)
|
singlemalt
Citizen
Username: Singlemalt
Post Number: 611
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 4:00 pm: | |
Only liberals would attack someone for giving everything to charity. He had every right to keep the options by law (although the obvious conflict of interest would make that difficult politicallly) - I think he is being awfully generous and smart. |
sportsnut
Citizen
Username: Sportsnut
Post Number: 1465
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 4:20 pm: | |
"He was the CEO, for Pete's sake."
Was being the operative word. It is your six degrees of separation that connects him now to Halliburton.
If you are so aware of the "old boy" network why pick on Cheney? Why single him out?
I'll admit to marginalizing things that give the appearance of impropriety if you admit that there is just as much evidence to discredit your theory that he still has a vested interest in the company. Again you repeat the tired old Democratic talking points and like a lemming you follow along. For every argument you make there is an equally compelling explanation as to why he retains the indirect interests. Does it look bad? Yes. Is it bad? No. There is a big difference between the appearance and the actual. Your blind devotion to the party line clouds your judgement.
Your personal knowledge of stock options (or lack thereof) is relevant, because if you knew anything about them you would know that there are restrictions about what he can and cannot do with them. You'd know that he was legally restricted from transferring them outright to a charity.
And then the coup de grace...."People commit murder all the time, too...that don't make it right." Now helping out the former VP (hopefully after his second term) is akin to comitting murder.
You are so witty. How do you live with yourself?
You talk about carting out the conservative chestnut - what about your implication that corporate = bad?
I have to get back to work now people are wondering why I'm laughing so hard. |
Maple Man
Citizen
Username: Mapleman
Post Number: 344
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 4:37 pm: | |
I would hope all you Bush supporters would be equally sanguine about it if Kerry was president and Heinz got a nice deal to provide food to the military.
But why do I get the feeling that the wing nut talk shows would be going bananas? |
Madden 11
Citizen
Username: Madden_11
Post Number: 391
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 4:51 pm: | |
If you are so aware of the "old boy" network why pick on Cheney? Why single him out?
Sportsnut, please. I think your uncontrollable laughter is cutting off the oxygen to your brain. I'll say it again: "Everyone else does it" is not a valid excuse. I'm "picking on" Cheney because he's the VICE PRESIDENT and one of the prime movers behind this war that's lining the pockets of his friends and former co-workers. That looks fishy to me. Cheney is supposed to be accountable to me, and the rest of the citizens of this country, and if I want to question his ethics, I have every right (some would say responsibility) to do so.
I'll admit to marginalizing things that give the appearance of impropriety if you admit that there is just as much evidence to discredit your theory that he still has a vested interest in the company.
I think we just have different definitions of "vested interest." You seem to think that because he's no longer an employee that he has no interest in how the company does. I disagree.
Does it look bad? Yes. Is it bad? No.
Here's where we disagree again. How could you possibly know whether it's truly "bad" or not? I never claim that it is, I just know that it looks bad, as you admit.
Do you have some way of proving that there's nothing shady going on, despite serious circumstantial evidence to the contrary? If so, please share. If not, admit that you're in no better a position to judge than I am.
I'm not making a charge here, I'm asking a question. Going by the Whitewater standard for investigation, we should've brought back the special prosecutor long ago.
Your blind devotion to the party line clouds your judgement.
I think that quote is listed in the dictionary under "irony."
Your personal knowledge of stock options (or lack thereof) is relevant, because if you knew anything about them you would know that there are restrictions about what he can and cannot do with them. You'd know that he was legally restricted from transferring them outright to a charity.
If you read what I actually wrote, you'll see that I was talking about the proceeds from the sale of stock, or exercise of the options, not directly transferring stock options to a charity. Either way, that minor detail has nothing to do with what we're talking about here.
Now, since you have a superior (almost godlike, really) knowledge of stock options as a concept, please explain specifically why Cheney is prevented from selling his. Not why he MIGHT be, but why he IS, since that's your contention.
Now helping out the former VP (hopefully after his second term) is akin to comitting murder.
Yes, that's obviously the exact point I was making. You're going to have to buy a cornfield if you keep constructing these straw men.
You are so witty. How do you live with yourself?
The wit helps.
what about your implication that corporate = bad?
What are you talking about? I imply nothing of the kind, nor do I believe it. Corruption is bad. If that's inextricably linked in your mind with corporations, that's your problem, not mine. |
dacar
Citizen
Username: Dacar
Post Number: 122
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 8:54 pm: | |
read today's NY times article about Cheney and Halliburton. They cannot find anything wrong with what Cheney is doing or the cotracts that were awarded via competitive bids |
musicme
Citizen
Username: Musicme
Post Number: 815
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 10:27 pm: | |
"if you can find me another company capable of doing what Halliburton does for the US than please let me know"
"if you can find something for my Halliburton Company to do, I'd appreciate it. We've got all this capability, just no where to use it..."
Wag, wag, wag |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page