|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/08/2005 08:15:24 PM · #326 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Originally posted by srdanz:
I just realized that I missed big this time... just because I wasn't thinking. Knowing that there is a certain company with an exclusive right to contracts in cases like this one, I could have made a little $$$ in the past week.
Check out the stock price of the companu with the symbol some company in the past week. Check out the jump on the Monday morning after Katrina hit, and check out the trend since then.
Wall Street has no heart. Just brutal truth. |
Damn. And Dick Cheney still gets a yearly check from Halliburton and owns over 400,000 shares of stock. Back in the days of honestly, we would call that a conflict of interest. |
Damn. Do your homework your Madness. The yearly check he gets is NOT from current involvement, it's not even a retainer - its deferred compensation that he EARNED while he was still employed at Halliburton. And the 400,000 shares of stock & options he holds title to can never profit him a single penney - their all held in an irrevocable trust that specifies that all profits and proceeds go to charity. Here's the linkto a copy of the actual legal document.
Why do liberals continue to keep spewing out the garbage charges trying to tie Cheney to Halliburton? Oh, yeah, because they hope to beguile those who do not check for the TRUTH. |
|
|
|
09/08/2005 08:56:19 PM · #327 |
Your charge sounds good but I believe you have the players positions switched. Socialism does not Promote the general welfare, capitalism does.
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by David Ey:
I believe it says PROMOTE not provide. Big diference.
|
The folks in charge don't seem to be in favor of that either ... |
|
|
|
|
09/08/2005 09:16:51 PM · #328 |
By Judith Polakoff
<<< They don't take advantage of opportunities? And how do you know this? >>>
By the unemployment and poverty level statistics you so conveniently posted........ |
|
|
|
09/08/2005 09:56:15 PM · #329 |
Would the Republicans/conservatives also blame the many thousands of African-American people who got lynched in the south through the 60s for not leaving and going up north? Maybe the poor black folk of NOLA who couldn't leave by vehicle and had no place to go even if they hiked out stayed behind because they feared they would meet the same fate. They didn't want to end up like Emmet Till.
Message edited by author 2005-09-09 14:08:59. |
|
|
|
09/08/2005 10:21:29 PM · #330 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Originally posted by srdanz:
I just realized that I missed big this time... just because I wasn't thinking. Knowing that there is a certain company with an exclusive right to contracts in cases like this one, I could have made a little $$$ in the past week.
Check out the stock price of the companu with the symbol some company in the past week. Check out the jump on the Monday morning after Katrina hit, and check out the trend since then.
Wall Street has no heart. Just brutal truth. |
Damn. And Dick Cheney still gets a yearly check from Halliburton and owns over 400,000 shares of stock. Back in the days of honestly, we would call that a conflict of interest. |
Damn. Do your homework your Madness. The yearly check he gets is NOT from current involvement, it's not even a retainer - its deferred compensation that he EARNED while he was still employed at Halliburton. And the 400,000 shares of stock & options he holds title to can never profit him a single penney - their all held in an irrevocable trust that specifies that all profits and proceeds go to charity. Here's the linkto a copy of the actual legal document.
Why do liberals continue to keep spewing out the garbage charges trying to tie Cheney to Halliburton? Oh, yeah, because they hope to beguile those who do not check for the TRUTH. |
-Ron, firstly, that document you cite, a few lines examined closely:
"This agreement is irrevocable and may not be terminated, waived or amended, EXCEPT that the parties may, by unanimous agreement in writing, make technical or clarifying amendments in order to more effectively carry out the purpose of this agreement."
Meaning that the document can be modified if the parties agree. Then we have this line:
âNothing in this agreement is intended to create any legal rights, privileges, or benefits in any person not a party to this agreement, including but not limited to any claim by any CHARITY, whether or not identified on Schedule B, to any donation of any sort, including without limitation any Net Proceeds, or to any claim for damages resulting.â
What these 2 lines mean is that the document can be modified but only by people âparty to this agreementâ, which is Dick Cheney and Lynn Cheney, NOT any of the charities.
Hmm... Maybe they will make the Cheney family the trustee of the donations and put them in charge of distributing them? Could do whatever they want really.
Got to love document loopholesâ¦
-Secondly, Conflict of interest:
According to Congressional Research Service from here;
the service reported that unexercised stock options and deferred salary "are among those benefits described by the Office of Government Ethics as 'retained ties' or 'linkages' to one's former employer."
That is a conflict of interest. It also shows that Cheney lied when he said;
"I've severed all my ties with the company, gotten rid of all my financial interest. I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and haven't had, now, for over three years.".
Also, I wonder why those "donations" have not been made yet... maybe so he can wait until he is out of the spotlight and then modify the agreement? Hmm.
Also, here is a list on Halliburton and Cheney entitled Claim vs. Fact - Cheney, Halliburton & the Government that will make any person of conscious sick.
|
|
|
|
09/08/2005 10:45:56 PM · #331 |
As a reminder- please be careful when making sweeping generalizations about any specific group. That includes religion, and political affiliation. Not all Republicans/Democrats/Christians/Jews/Hindis/Insertspecialinterestgrouphere
are the same. Y'all know where the line is. Let's try to keep in clean. :) |
|
|
|
09/08/2005 10:48:48 PM · #332 |
Originally posted by laurielblack:
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Originally posted by laurielblack:
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Is this your own work?
If not, please cite your source.
-Terry |
Are we writing research papers now like in Junior English? Let me get all my notecards and footnotes ready. Sheesh. |
You're a photographer. How would you feel if you found your work posted on another web site, without your permission and without attribution?
-Terry |
No, I'm a school counselor. I take pictures for fun and stress relief, and participate on this site for the same reasons. He didn't post a picture, he typed something. You are suggesting he plagiarized that text, whether or not you know he did. I think that's pretty presumptuous. |
As a matter of fact, he DID plagiarize the text. Here is the article. |
|
|
|
09/08/2005 10:51:01 PM · #333 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
Your charge sounds good but I believe you have the players positions switched. Socialism does not Promote the general welfare, capitalism does.
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by David Ey:
I believe it says PROMOTE not provide. Big diference.
|
The folks in charge don't seem to be in favor of that either ... |
|
The purpose of capitalism is to increase personal wealth through the investment of money. It doesn't give s*** about "general welfare" or anything except stockholder profits. Otherwise you would have over 10% of the population of the "richest country in the world" living below the "official poverty line" while your Vice-President collects his hundr3eds of thousands every year in "deferred compensation." If there was any real intent to promote the "general welfare" you wouldn't need a concept like "poverty line," much less having people living on less. |
|
|
|
09/08/2005 11:22:02 PM · #334 |
| I see that once again I have been censored in these forums. Do y'all know what the word "rant" means? |
|
|
|
09/08/2005 11:25:15 PM · #335 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
I see that once again I have been censored in these forums. Do y'all know what the word "rant" means? |
Yes, but the TOS still forbid insults and pejorative name-calling, even in the Rant Section.
I'm sure you have the vocabulary and wits to insult people within the rules ... : ) |
|
|
|
09/08/2005 11:26:50 PM · #336 |
| So "fascist" was the dirty word? |
|
|
|
09/08/2005 11:32:59 PM · #337 |
Search the word "failure" on Google. Or better yet, hit the "I'm Feeling Lucky" button Google while searching "failure."
JV |
|
|
|
09/08/2005 11:33:23 PM · #338 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
I see that once again I have been censored in these forums. |
Your post was removed, along with the one to which you replied. Neither personal attacks on nor deliberate provocation of other members are permitted. That applies both to you and to the person to whom you replied.
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Do y'all know what the word "rant" means? |
In the context of the DPChallenge forums, it means "Sometimes it's good to vent. This section is now moderated." That means the Terms of Service apply.
-Terry
|
|
|
|
09/08/2005 11:40:38 PM · #339 |
Geez...can't we just keep the thread nice and calm guys sheesh! haha just kidding. 14 pages man I musta started a war!
|
|
|
|
09/08/2005 11:47:41 PM · #340 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Originally posted by srdanz:
I just realized that I missed big this time... just because I wasn't thinking. Knowing that there is a certain company with an exclusive right to contracts in cases like this one, I could have made a little $$$ in the past week.
Check out the stock price of the companu with the symbol some company in the past week. Check out the jump on the Monday morning after Katrina hit, and check out the trend since then.
Wall Street has no heart. Just brutal truth. |
Damn. And Dick Cheney still gets a yearly check from Halliburton and owns over 400,000 shares of stock. Back in the days of honestly, we would call that a conflict of interest. |
Damn. Do your homework your Madness. The yearly check he gets is NOT from current involvement, it's not even a retainer - its deferred compensation that he EARNED while he was still employed at Halliburton. And the 400,000 shares of stock & options he holds title to can never profit him a single penney - their all held in an irrevocable trust that specifies that all profits and proceeds go to charity. Here's the linkto a copy of the actual legal document.
Why do liberals continue to keep spewing out the garbage charges trying to tie Cheney to Halliburton? Oh, yeah, because they hope to beguile those who do not check for the TRUTH. |
-Ron, firstly, that document you cite, a few lines examined closely:
"This agreement is irrevocable and may not be terminated, waived or amended, EXCEPT that the parties may, by unanimous agreement in writing, make technical or clarifying amendments in order to more effectively carry out the purpose of this agreement."
Meaning that the document can be modified if the parties agree. |
Let me re-state that with different highlighting so that you might better understand that the agreement may NOT be TERMINATED, may NOT be WAIVED, and may only be changed to more effectively carry out the PURPOSE of the agreement:
"This agreement is irrevocable and may not be terminated, waived or amended, exce[t that the parties may, by unanimous agreement in writing, make technical or clarifying amendments in order to more effectively carry out the purpose of this agreement."
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Then we have this line:
"Nothing in this agreement is intended to create any legal rights, privileges, or benefits in any person not a party to this agreement, including but not limited to any claim by any CHARITY, whether or not identified on Schedule B, to any donation of any sort, including without limitation any Net Proceeds, or to any claim for damages resulting."
What these 2 lines mean is that the document can be modified but only by people "party to this agreement", which is Dick Cheney and Lynn Cheney, NOT any of the charities.
Hmm... Maybe they will make the Cheney family the trustee of the donations and put them in charge of distributing them? Could do whatever they want really.
Got to love document loopholes⦠|
Could NOT do "whatever they want, really". Could only change the document to better serve the PURPOSE of the agreement ( which is to distribute proceeds to charity ). That means that, yes, the document COULD be changed to make the Cheney family the trustees, but they would STILL be limited to disbursing the proceeds to CHARITY.
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
-Secondly, Conflict of interest:
According to Congressional Research Service from here;
the service reported that unexercised stock options and deferred salary "are among those benefits described by the Office of Government Ethics as 'retained ties' or 'linkages' to one's former employer."
That is a conflict of interest. It also shows that Cheney lied when he said;
"I've severed all my ties with the company, gotten rid of all my financial interest. I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and haven't had, now, for over three years.". |
Come on, your Madness. If you're going to quote, quote the rest:
"the service reported that unexercised stock options and deferred salary "are among those benefits described by the Office of Government Ethics as 'retained ties' or 'linkages' to one's former employer that must be reported on an official's annual disclosure forms.
In fact, Cheney does report his options and deferred salary on his anual disclosure form every year.
But the CRS memo didn't explicitly state that such an arrangement ( either the deferred stock options ( which are insured under a separate policy paid for by Cheney ) OR the Options held in a Charitable trust, constituted a type of "interest" that would be considered a "conflict" of interest. In fact, the CRS memo said that it "is not clear", 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.
Furthermore, the Official regulations on "conflict of interest" are clear - the regulations from the Office of Government Ethics states:
"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.
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Also, I wonder why those "donations" have not been made yet... maybe so he can wait until he is out of the spotlight and then modify the agreement? Hmm. |
Innuendo. Pure and simple. Beguiling, but innuendo nonetheless.
And here is a list from factcheck.orgthat points out a different "truth". Now THAT kind of list makes liberals sick.
|
|
|
|
09/09/2005 09:24:05 AM · #341 |
Dan Brown, Head of FEMA, is a lying sack of dingo kidneys and NOT AT ALL who who claims to be, but merely a connected man:
FEMA's Brown padded resume: hardly a lawyer, either
by Goldy at HorsesAss [Subscribe]
Thu Sep 8th, 2005 at 15:11:48 PDT
FEMA director Mike Brown was originally brought into the agency as its general counsel, under the auspices of his old college roommate (and Bush fixer) Joe Allbaugh. By now we all know that Brown is an emergency manager who knows nothing about managing emergencies, and a former horse association commissioner who knew nothing about horses... but apparently, he was also a general counsel who was hardly even a real lawyer.
In a devastating expose published today in The New Republic, University of Colorodo-Boulder law professor Paul Campos determines to answer the question "of exactly what, given Brown's real biography, he is qualified to do." The answer, not surprisingly, is very little.
To understand the Mike Brown saga, one has to know something about the intricacies of the legal profession, beginning with the status of the law school he attended. Brown's biography on FEMA's website reports that he's a graduate of the Oklahoma City University School of Law. This is not, to put it charitably, a well-known institution. For example, I've been a law professor for the past 15 years and have never heard of it. Of more relevance is the fact that, until 2003, the school was not even a member of the Association of American Law Schools (AALS)--the organization that, along with the American Bar Association, accredits the nation's law schools. Most prospective law students won't even consider applying to a non-AALS law school unless they have no other option, because many employers have a policy of not considering graduates of non-AALS institutions. So it's fair to say that Brown embarked on his prospective legal career from the bottom of the profession's hierarchy.
According to Campos, Brown received his J.D. in 1981, and spent the next couple years representing the interests of a "prominent local family" in Enid, Oklahoma, followed by an 18-month stint at a local law firm (that no longer exists.) But it appears that by 1987 he had already more or less abandoned his legal career. From 1991 to 2001 he served as commissioner of judges and stewards for the International Arabian Horse Association, a full-time position from which he resigned under pressure.
What, then, are we to make of the claim in Brown's FEMA biography that, prior to joining the Agency, he had spent most of his professional career practicing law in Colorado? Normally, an attorney practicing law in a state for ten years would have left a record of his experience in public documents. But just about the only evidence of Brown's Colorado legal career is the Web page he submitted to Findlaw.com, an Internet site for people seeking legal representation. There, he lists himself as a member of the "International Arabian Horse Association Legal Dept." and claims to be competent to practice law across a dizzying spectrum of specialties--estate planning, family law, employment law for both plaintiffs and defendants, real-estate law, sports law, labor law, and legislative practice. With all this expertise, it's all the more striking that one can't find any other evidence of Brown's legal career in Colorado.
Campos further deconstructs Brown's FEMA bio, which he impressively claims to have served as "a bar examiner on ethics and professional responsibility for the Oklahoma Supreme Court and as a hearing examiner for the Colorado Supreme Court." Campos' translation?
In Oklahoma, he graded answers to bar exam questions, and, in Colorado, he volunteered to serve on the local attorney disciplinary board.
Ouch.
Campos' summation is equally devastating, and a pointed critique of the Bush administration.
When Brown left the iaha four years ago, he was, among other things, a failed former lawyer--a man with a 20-year-old degree from a semi-accredited law school who hadn't attempted to practice law in a serious way in nearly 15 years and who had just been forced out of his job in the wake of charges of impropriety. At this point in his life, returning to his long-abandoned legal career would have been very difficult in the competitive Colorado legal market. Yet, within months of leaving the IAHA , he was handed one of the top legal positions in the entire federal government: general counsel for a major federal agency. A year later, he was made its number-two official, and, a year after that, Bush appointed him director of FEMA.
It's bad enough when attorneys are named to government jobs for which their careers, no matter how distinguished, don't qualify them. But Brown wasn't a distinguished lawyer: He was hardly a lawyer at all. When he left the IAHA , he was a 47-year-old with a very thin resumé and no job. Yet he was also what's known in the Mafia as a "connected guy." That such a person could end up in one of the federal government's most important positions tells you all you need to know about how the Bush administration works--or, rather, doesn't.
Once again, this has always been a story about cronyism, and the human lives it may have cost. And now we know that not only did Brown lack the qualifications to lead FEMA, he also lacked the legal qualifications to serve as its general counsel, his first position at the agency. It's not just Brown who should be fired... it's the incompetent president who appointed him.
TIME is running even more on this:
In response, Nicol Andrews, deputy strategic director in FEMA's office of public affairs, insists that while Brown began as an intern, he became an "assistant city manager" with a distinguished record of service. "According to Mike Brown," she says, "a large portion [of the points raised by TIME] is very inaccurate."
Brown's lack of experience in emergency management isn't the only apparent bit of padding on his resume, which raises questions about how rigorously the White House vetted him before putting him in charge of FEMA. Under the "honors and awards" section of his profile at FindLaw.com ââ¬â which is information on the legal website provided by lawyers or their officesââ¬âhe lists "Outstanding Political Science Professor, Central State University". However, Brown "wasn't a professor here, he was only a student here," says Charles Johnson, News Bureau Director in the University Relations office at the University of Central Oklahoma (formerly named Central State University). "He may have been an adjunct instructor," says Johnson, but that title is very different from that of "professor." Carl Reherman, a former political science professor at the University through the '70s and '80s, says that Brown "was not on the faculty." As for the honor of "Outstanding Political Science Professor," Johnson says, "I spoke with the department chair yesterday and he's not aware of it." Johnson could not confirm that Brown made the Dean's list or was an "Outstanding Political Science Senior," as is stated on his online profile.
Speaking for Brown, Andrews says that Brown has never claimed to be a political science professor, in spite of what his profile in FindLaw indicates. "He was named the outstanding political science senior at Central State, and was an adjunct professor at Oklahoma City School of Law."
Under the heading of "Professional Associations and Memberships" on FindLaw, Brown states that from 1983 to the present he has been director of the Oklahoma Christian Home, a nursing home in Edmond. But an administrator with the Home, told TIME that Brown is "not a person that anyone here is familiar with." She says there was a board of directors until a couple of years ago, but she couldn't find anyone who recalled him being on it. According to FEMA's Andrews, Brown said "he's never claimed to be the director of the home. He was on the board of directors, or governors of the nursing home." However, a veteran employee at the center since 1981 says Brown "was never director here, was never on the board of directors, was never executive director. He was never here in any capacity. I never heard his name mentioned here."
The FindLaw profile for Brown was amended on Thursday to remove a reference to his tenure at the International Arabian Horse Association, which has become a contested point.
Brown's FindLaw profile lists a wide range of areas of legal practice, from estate planning to family law to sports. However, one former colleague does not remember Brown's work as sterling. Stephen Jones, a prominent Oklahoma lawyer who was lead defense attorney on the Timothy McVeigh case, was Brown's boss for two-and-a-half years in the early '80s. "He did mainly transactional work, not litigation," says Jones. "There was a feeling that he was not serious and somewhat shallow." Jones says when his law firm split, Brown was one of two staffers who was let go.
|
|
|
|
09/09/2005 09:29:07 AM · #342 |
Originally posted by RonB:
These endless finger pointing rants from the anti-Bush liberals remind me of the death throes of a man choking to death on his own vomit. For all their venting all they can produce is more vitriolic rhetoric. They seem incapable of producing anything of substance that paints the target of their hatred as being any worse than his predecessor, and his before him.
The last article derides FEMA Director Brown by pointing out that his last "private sector" job was running horse shows. Why his last privat-sector job is mentioned is not clear. But it is inconsistant to mention it without pointing out that his predecessor under Clinton, Jame Lee Witt, held, as HIS last private-sector job, running a Construction firm. Does one or the other translate into making an individual more qualified?
Note: I'm not defending Brown, just ridiculing the rhetoric of the left. |
With some elegant rhetoric of your own, I must say! :D Kudos! ;D |
|
|
|
09/09/2005 09:42:14 AM · #343 |
Images speak beter than words
|
|
|
|
09/09/2005 10:20:52 AM · #344 |
Originally posted by deapee:
Geez...can't we just keep the thread nice and calm guys sheesh! haha just kidding. 14 pages man I musta started a war! |
Don't get too excited - we've got a four page thread on toilet seats that is getting pretty graphic!
:)
P |
|
|
|
09/09/2005 10:26:45 AM · #345 |
Originally posted by Riponlady:
Originally posted by deapee:
Geez...can't we just keep the thread nice and calm guys sheesh! haha just kidding. 14 pages man I musta started a war! |
Don't get too excited - we've got a four page thread on toilet seats that is getting pretty graphic!
:)
P |
Maybe we should go for a constitutional amendment forcing guys to leave the seat down.
|
|
|
|
09/09/2005 02:28:39 PM · #346 |
|
|
|
09/09/2005 02:36:29 PM · #347 |
Interesting, thanks for posting...from the article:
Earlier, Brown confirmed the switch. Asked if he was being made a scapegoat for a federal relief effort that has drawn widespread and sharp criticism, Brown told The Associated Press after a long pause: "By the press, yes. By the president, No."
Message edited by author 2005-09-09 14:38:42. |
|
|
|
09/09/2005 03:42:09 PM · #348 |
lol...I just read this and other one you posted in the pets one....I'm a news junkie too! :)
|
|
|
|
09/09/2005 03:42:51 PM · #349 |
OKay everybody....I know who did it. It's true....
The Debbil.
:)
|
|
|
|
09/09/2005 04:29:19 PM · #350 |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/01/2025 03:32:20 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/01/2025 03:32:20 PM EDT.
|
