1
   

HOW MANY TIMES WILL EDWARDS SAY "HALLIBURTON" TONIGHT?

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Oct, 2004 03:10 pm
As many times as Cheney will say, "no experience."
0 Replies
 
Larry434
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Oct, 2004 03:55 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
As many times as Cheney will say, "no experience."


More than once I would guess, because that is an Edwards vulnerability.
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Oct, 2004 04:04 pm
Quote:
More than once I would guess, because that is an Edwards vulnerability.


As it was regarding Bush's first run. But Edwards is still gonna wipe the floor with Cheney. I can't wait for Cheney to get angry, tell Kerry to f*ck off, and then pass out. Although Cheney will already be sitting down, as he cannot physically stand for the full 90 minutes.
0 Replies
 
Larry434
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Oct, 2004 04:12 pm
Dookiestix wrote:
Quote:
More than once I would guess, because that is an Edwards vulnerability.


As it was regarding Bush's first run. But Edwards is still gonna wipe the floor with Cheney. I can't wait for Cheney to get angry, tell Kerry to f*ck off, and then pass out. Although Cheney will already be sitting down, as he cannot physically stand for the full 90 minutes.


One major difference. Bush had government executive office experience as governor. Edwards has none.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Oct, 2004 04:44 pm
Yeah, let's talk about Bush's patronage when he was gov of Texas. http://www.tpj.org/reports/appointments/boards.html
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Oct, 2004 04:46 pm
He not only mislead Texas into the hell-hole with patronage instead of the best people, he's now doing that at the national level. And the repubs wants more of the same. Yeah, makes a whole lot of sense.
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Oct, 2004 05:07 pm
Quote:
One major difference. Bush had government executive office experience as governor. Edwards has none.


And that's what matters most, right, Larry434?

Bush's record before selected by the USSC for pResident:

Ran for congress and lost.

Produced a Hollywood slasher B movie.

Bought an oil company, but couldn't find any oil in Texas, company went bankrupt shortly after I sold all my stock.

Bought the Texas Rangers baseball team in a sweetheart deal that took land using tax-payer money. Biggest move: Traded Sammy Sosa to the Chicago Cubs.

With fathers help (and his name) was elected Governor of Texas.
Accomplishments- Changed pollution laws for power and oil companies and made Texas the most polluted state in the Union. Replaced Los Angeles with Houston as the most smog ridden city in America. Cut taxes and bankrupted the Texas government to the tune of billions in borrowed money. Set record for most executions by any Governor in American history.

Became president after losing the popular vote by over 500,000 votes, with the help of my fathers appointments to the Supreme Court.


Helluva record.

Meanwhile, John Edwards actually did something to help the little man:

Quote:
Before his election, Edwards was a successful trial attorney who represented families and children that had been wrongly injured by negligent corporate manufacturers, and municipal entities.


Then there's Cheney record (and what a record):

http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Dick_Cheney

It's gonna be interesting.
0 Replies
 
Larry434
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Oct, 2004 05:23 pm
I said he government executive office experience, guys.

That you characterize his experience as a negative is not surprising in the least.

As for Edwards helping the little man, dookie, he also helped himself to about $70M in the process. :wink:
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Oct, 2004 05:24 pm
Larry434 wrote:
I said he government executive office experience, guys.

That you characterize his experience as a negative is not surprising in the least.

As for Edwards helping the little man, dookie, he also helped himself to about $70M in the process. :wink:


small potatoes compared to what bushinc and their buddies have helped themselves to while "helping" Iraq.....
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Oct, 2004 05:30 pm
Larry434:

Is he not supposed to make money off those bastard greedy corporations screwing the little guy? At least he got paid for standing up for these people. I don' t see Bush and Cheney doing that AT ALL in this, how you call it, "great republic."

If you're good, you should get paid what you're worth; and my guess is Edwards is very good.

We shall see tonight.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Oct, 2004 05:32 pm
If I needed a lawyer, I'd pick Edwards over Cheney any day of the week - and then some.
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Oct, 2004 05:35 pm
And Larry 434, perhaps Edwards will ask Cheney tonight how much money he made off of Saddam during his torturous regime with Halliburton?

Published on Wednesday, September 4, 2002 in the Boulder Daily Camera
Cheney-Linked Nonsense: VP Boosted Saddam
by Molly Ivins

AUSTIN, Texas ?- Excuse me: I don't want to be tacky or anything, but hasn't it occurred to anyone in Washington that sending Vice President Dick Cheney out to champion an invasion of Iraq on the grounds that Saddam Hussein is a "murderous dictator" is somewhere between bad taste and flaming hypocrisy?

When Dick Cheney was CEO of the oilfield supply firm Halliburton, the company did $23.8 million in business with Saddam Hussein, the evildoer "prepared to share his weapons of mass destruction with terrorists."

So if Saddam is "the world's worst leader," how come Cheney sold him the equipment to get his dilapidated oil fields up and running so he to could afford to build weapons of mass destruction?

In 1998, the United Nations passed a resolution allowing Iraq to buy spare parts for its oilfields, but other sanctions remained in place, and the United States has consistently pressured the U.N. to stop exports of medicine and other needed supplies on the grounds they could have "dual use." As the former Secretary of Defense under Bush the Elder, Cheney was in particularly vulnerable position on the hypocrisy of doing business with Iraq. (Although in 1991, after the Gulf War, Cheney told a group of oil industry executives he was emphatically against trying to topple Hussein.)

Using two subsidiaries, Dresser-Rand and Ingersoll-Dresser, Halliburton helped rebuild Saddam's war-damaged oil fields. The combined value of these contracts for parts and equipment was greater than that of any other American company doing business with Iraq ?- companies including Schlumberger, Flowserve, Fisher-Rosemount, General Electric. They acted through foreign subsidiaries or associated companies in France, Belgium, Germany, India, Switzerland, Bahrain, Egypt and the Netherlands.

In several cases, it is clear the European companies did no more than loan their names to American firms for the purpose of dealing with Hussein. Iraq then became America's second-largest Middle Eastern oil supplier.

This story was initially reported by the Financial Times of London over two years ago and has since been more extensively reported in the European press. But as we have seen with the case of Harken Energy and many other stories, there is a difference between a story having been reported and having attention being paid to it (a distinction many journalists have trouble with). Thus the administration was able to dismiss the new information on shady dealings at Harken as "old news" because not much attention was ever paid when the old news was new.

When Cheney left Halliburton, he received a $34 million severance package despite the fact that the single biggest deal of his five-year career there, the acquisition of Dresser Industries, turned out to be a huge blunder since the company came saddled with asbestos liability. (On the campaign trail, Cheney often claimed he had been "out in the private sector creating jobs." The first thing he did after the Dresser merger was lay off 10,000 people.)

Halliburton, America's No. 1 oil-services company, is the nation's fifth-largest military contractor and the biggest non-union employer in the United States. It employs more than 100,000 workers worldwide and does over $15 billion a year. Halliburton under Cheney dealt with several brutal dictatorships, including the despicable government of Burma (Myanmar). The company also played questionable roles in Algeria, Angola, Bosnia, Croatia, Haiti, Somalia and Indonesia.

Halliburton also had dealings with Iran and Libya, both on the State Department's list of terrorist states. Halliburton's subsidiary Brown & Root, the old Texas construction firm that does much business with the U.S. military, was fined $3.8 million for re-exporting goods to Libya in violation of U.S. sanctions.

If you want to know why the Democrats didn't jump all over this story and make a big deal out it, it's because ?- as usual ?- Democrats are involved in similar dealings. Former CIA director John Deutsch is on the board of Schlumberger, the second largest oil services firm after Halliburton, which is also doing business with Iraq through subsidiaries.

Americans have long been aware that corporate money has consistently corrupted domestic policy in favor of corporate interests, and that both parties are in thrall to huge corporate campaign donors. We are less accustomed to connecting the dots when it comes to foreign policy. But there is no more evidence that corporations pay attention to anything other than profits in their foreign dealings than they do in their domestic deals.

Enron, as usual, provides some textbook examples of just how indifferent to human rights American companies can be. Halliburton's dealings in Nigeria, in partnership with Shell and Chevron, provide another such example, including gross violations of human rights and environmental abuses.

No one is ever going to argue that Saddam Hussein is a good guy, but Dick Cheney is not the right man to make the case against him. I have never understood why the Washington press corps cannot remember anything for longer than 10 minutes, but hearing Cheney denounce Saddam is truly "Give us a break" time.

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0904-04.htm
0 Replies
 
Larry434
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Oct, 2004 05:36 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
If I needed a lawyer, I'd pick Edwards over Cheney any day of the week - and then some.


I would not pick Cheney as my lawyer either, since his degrees are in Political Science, not law. :wink:
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Oct, 2004 05:37 pm
Dook, Excellent!
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Oct, 2004 05:55 pm
some things that Cheney will not bring up:

I have the cardiovascular system of Mr burns

We will choose 2 Hun-like supreme court justices so we can dismantle all the progress made since roosevelt.

i never had anything to do with awarding no-bid contracts to Halliburton and Kellog, Brown n Root. However i approve all the reviews of those who did

Aluminum tubes? I dont know nothing about no steenkeng aluminum tubes

Rumsfeld and Powell are 2 flaming assholes who have problems with a little lying.

Ive been part of the problem since the Ford administration.

Now, if Edwards can just get some smack-ass on these few points, ill be a happy little farmer
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Oct, 2004 06:23 pm
Edwards won't dare mention "Oil for Food".

Would blow a hole a mile wide through Kerry's mantra of "consulting with our allies."
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Oct, 2004 06:27 pm
JustWonders wrote:
Edwards won't dare mention "Oil for Food".

Would blow a hole a mile wide through Kerry's mantra of "consulting with our allies."


watching with your daddy tonight JW?
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Oct, 2004 06:35 pm
Most liberals won't know about this since the NYTimes (if they report on it at all) only reports in the back pages of their "newspaper". But here's what the Washington Times had to say on March 12:

Quote:
Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry complains that President Bush pursued a unilateralist foreign policy that gave short shrift to the concerns of the United Nations and our allies when it came to taking military action against Saddam Hussein. But the mounting evidence of scandal that has been uncovered in the U.N. Oil For Food program suggests that there was never a serious possibility of getting Security Council support for military action because influential people in Russia and France were getting paid off by Saddam. After the fall of Baghdad last spring, France and Russia tried to delay the lifting of sanctions against Iraq and continue the Oil for Food program. That's because France and Russia profited from it: The Times of London calculated that French and Russian companies received $11 billion worth of business from Oil for Food between 1996 and 2003.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Oct, 2004 06:51 pm
JW, Your post info sounds vaguely familiar. Sounds about right to me!
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Oct, 2004 08:51 pm
All in all I thought the debate was boring except for when Cheney got a little uncomfortable having his daughter mentioned and Edwards tried to liven up the evening with a few kind of lame jokes saying kerry's name when he wasn't suppossed to.

But I did think Edwards did a good job on his closing. I wish though that the democrats would just say that gays should be allowed to marry and I wish they would quit being so pro Israel. Edwards mentioned Israeli children getting killed but no mention of the Palestinians.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/10/2026 at 08:58:02