Debate #2

[arsenal]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@Oct 5 2004, 09:06 PM

You ask "what's the big deal about Halliburton"? The answer is "Halliburton got a big deal". He's on the payroll. Whether it's all crooked or not (which I happen to think it is), you just have to admit it looks terrible. The unfortunate fact that Halliburton (who still issue Cheney a cheque) has been caught with their hands deep inside the cookie jar doesn't help.

Halliburton got the deal becuase they where the ONLY company that could respond to the demand within a reasonable amount of time.
Yes, Cheney does still receive a check from the company, but it is a set amount that was part of his severence package from retiring as CEO before taking the VP position.

It has no correlation as to how well the company does with contracts it recieves now, or in the future.
It only "looks" bad when people distort the facts.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by nfotiu@Oct 5 2004, 10:05 PM
Speaking of internet fun, has anyone gone to the website Cheney mentioned:

www.factcheck.com

Jeebus, did he really say factcheck.com? If he did, that's a big old "whooooops".

Factcheck.org (the one Cheney wants to point people too) and factcheck.com (a page that I haven't read but starts with "why we must not elect George Bush" are two different things. I hope he did say "dot com" because that's kind of funny.

[nfotiu]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos+Oct 6 2004, 04:15 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RougeUnderoos @ Oct 6 2004, 04:15 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-nfotiu@Oct 5 2004, 10:05 PM
Speaking of internet fun, has anyone gone to the website Cheney mentioned:

www.factcheck.com

Jeebus, did he really say factcheck.com? If he did, that's a big old "whooooops".

Factcheck.org (the one Cheney wants to point people too) and factcheck.com (a page that I haven't read but starts with "why we must not elect George Bush" are two different things. I hope he did say "dot com" because that's kind of funny. [/b][/quote]
it is .com in all the transcripts.

CHENEY: Well, the reason they keep mentioning Halliburton is because they're trying to throw up a smokescreen. They know the charges are false.

They know that if you go, for example, to factcheck.com (sic), an independent Web site sponsored by the University of Pennsylvania, you can get the specific details with respect to Halliburton.

It's an effort that they've made repeatedly to try to confuse the voters and to raise questions, but there's no substance to the charges.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134579,00.html

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by nfotiu@Oct 6 2004, 04:05 AM
Factcheck.org (the one Cheney wants to point people too) and factcheck.com (a page that I haven't read but starts with "why we must not elect George Bush" are two different things. I hope he did say "dot com" because that's kind of funny.

I'm pretty sure it was factcheck.com he said. Takes you right to a George Soros anti-Bush site!!! Billionaires against Bush.

Soros is the guy who almost single handedly destroyed the British pound in the early 1990's if I remember right.

Here is what Cheney was trying to get at, an ad directed at his service at Halliburton:

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=261

Cowperson

[Flame On]

Originally posted by arsenal+Oct 6 2004, 04:13 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (arsenal @ Oct 6 2004, 04:13 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-RougeUnderoos@Oct 5 2004, 09:06 PM

You ask "what's the big deal about Halliburton"? The answer is "Halliburton got a big deal". He's on the payroll. Whether it's all crooked or not (which I happen to think it is), you just have to admit it looks terrible. The unfortunate fact that Halliburton (who still issue Cheney a cheque) has been caught with their hands deep inside the cookie jar doesn't help.

Halliburton got the deal becuase they where the ONLY company that could respond to the demand within a reasonable amount of time.
Yes, Cheney does still receive a check from the company, but it is a set amount that was part of his severence package from retiring as CEO before taking the VP position.

It has no correlation as to how well the company does with contracts it recieves now, or in the future.
It only "looks" bad when people distort the facts. [/b][/quote]
Is it distorted that the company is being investigated; as Edwards mentioned, by financial regulators in an official capacity? Or does that just plain look bad? hmmm which to choose.

[RougeUnderoos]

Wow.

I know nothing of internet rules. Is it possible that the Soros people picked up on the blunder and within minutes secured the domain factcheck.com?

[Flame On]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@Oct 6 2004, 04:31 AM
Wow.

I know nothing of internet rules. Is it possible that the Soros people picked up on the blunder and within minutes secured the domain factcheck.com?

Either way does that show good judgement or leadership? Guess Bush Cheney aren't the people for the job. I mean if he can't get a simple .com internet sight right, imagine what would happen if he say, wanted to invade Iran and spelt it wrong...

[arsenal]

Originally posted by Flame On+Oct 5 2004, 09:23 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Flame On @ Oct 5 2004, 09:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Halliburton got the deal becuase they where the ONLY company that could respond to the demand within a reasonable amount of time.
Yes, Cheney does still receive a check from the company, but it is a set amount that was part of his severence package from retiring as CEO before taking the VP position.

It has no correlation as to how well the company does with contracts it recieves now, or in the future.
It only "looks" bad when people distort the facts.

Is it distorted that the company is being investigated; as Edwards mentioned, by financial regulators in an official capacity? Or does that just plain look bad? hmmm which to choose. [/b][/quote]
Is it being investigated for the time that Cheney was the at the helm, or for the last 4 years?

Yes, it does have an effect. Cheney has no control over how the company runs its business now.

If it is being investigated for the years that Cheney was running it, then yes, it would look bad. And I would agree with you.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by nfotiu+Oct 6 2004, 04:17 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (nfotiu @ Oct 6 2004, 04:17 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Jeebus, did he really say factcheck.com? If he did, that's a big old "whooooops".

Factcheck.org (the one Cheney wants to point people too) and factcheck.com (a page that I haven't read but starts with "why we must not elect George Bush" are two different things. I hope he did say "dot com" because that's kind of funny.

it is .com in all the transcripts.
[/b][/quote]
Ahahaha! That is the best thing I've heard all day.

It's almost like Bush's henchmen are purposely screwing up.

[Flame On]

Is it being investigated for the time that Cheney was the at the helm, or for the last 4 years?
Yes, it does have an effect. Cheney has no control over how the company runs its business now.

If it is being investigated for the years that Cheney was running it, then yes, it would look bad. And I would agree with you.

As far as I've heard, the investigations do cover the inacurate inflation of profits; alla Enron etc. that were submitted during Cheney's tenure. Again, as far as I've heard.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by arsenal+Oct 5 2004, 10:36 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (arsenal @ Oct 5 2004, 10:36 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Is it distorted that the company is being investigated; as Edwards mentioned, by financial regulators in an official capacity? Or does that just plain look bad? hmmm which to choose.

Is it being investigated for the time that Cheney was the at the helm, or for the last 4 years?

Yes, it does have an effect. Cheney has no control over how the company runs its business now.

If it is being investigated for the years that Cheney was running it, then yes, it would look bad. And I would agree with you. [/b][/quote]
Edwards alluded to some investigations into some wrondoings and shady deals while Cheney was the boss at Halliburton. Is that relevant?

Also, what is with Cheney's "these guys aren't qualified" business? Both Kerry and Edwards are far more qualified to be the president than the president was when he took office. What was he? Governor of Texas for three years and a part owner of the Texas Rangers before that? It doesn't make sense to try to pull that one out but it seems the Democrats will let them get away with it. If you ask me, signing a cheque for Nolan Ryan doesn't qualify you for much more than signing a cheque for Nolan Ryan.

[arsenal]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@Oct 5 2004, 09:31 PM
Wow.

I know nothing of internet rules. Is it possible that the Soros people picked up on the blunder and within minutes secured the domain factcheck.com?

Domain was registered on Feb 4, 2004.
Even if it was registered imediately after the slip-up, it wouldn't show up for 24-36hrs.

The other posibility is a domain hi-jacking. But I doubt that happened.

WHOIS information for factcheck.com:

[whois.domainnamesales.com]
Registrant:
Name Administration Inc. (BVI)
Box 10518 A.P.O.
Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands B.W.I.
KY

Domain name: FACTCHECK.COM

Administrative Contact:
Domain, Administrator admin@nameadmininc.com
Box 10518 A.P.O.
Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands B.W.I.
KY
+1.345.946.6879
Technical Contact:
Domain, Administrator admin@nameadmininc.com
Box 10518 A.P.O.
Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands B.W.I.
KY
+1.345.946.6879


Registrar of Record: DomainNameSales
Record last updated on 12-Sep-2004.
Record expires on 04-Feb-2007.
Record created on 04-Feb-2004.

Domain servers in listed order:
NS1.15X.NET 66.199.187.170
NS2.15X.NET 66.199.187.171


Domain status:
REGISTRAR-LOCK

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by arsenal+Oct 5 2004, 10:43 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (arsenal @ Oct 5 2004, 10:43 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-RougeUnderoos@Oct 5 2004, 09:31 PM
Wow.

I know nothing of internet rules. Is it possible that the Soros people picked up on the blunder and within minutes secured the domain factcheck.com?

Domain was registered on Feb 4, 2004.
Even if it was registered imediately after the slip-up, it wouldn't show up for 24-36hrs.

The other posibility is a domain hi-jacking. But I doubt that happened.

WHOIS information for factcheck.com:

[whois.domainnamesales.com]
Registrant:
Name Administration Inc. (BVI)
Box 10518 A.P.O.
Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands B.W.I.
KY

Domain name: FACTCHECK.COM

Administrative Contact:
Domain, Administrator admin@nameadmininc.com
Box 10518 A.P.O.
Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands B.W.I.
KY
+1.345.946.6879
Technical Contact:
Domain, Administrator admin@nameadmininc.com
Box 10518 A.P.O.
Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands B.W.I.
KY
+1.345.946.6879


Registrar of Record: DomainNameSales
Record last updated on 12-Sep-2004.
Record expires on 04-Feb-2007.
Record created on 04-Feb-2004.

Domain servers in listed order:
NS1.15X.NET 66.199.187.170
NS2.15X.NET 66.199.187.171


Domain status:
REGISTRAR-LOCK [/b][/quote]
Thanks for that.

By the way, I can already tell we are going to disagree constantly, but it's nice to have a new nemesis on board. The others I tend to disagree with(Tranny, DFF in particular) have become quite predictable, foul smelling and rather easily rattled. I wouldn't know them to see them, but I am convinced that they are physically quite unattractive, mentally challenged and hygienically deficient.

[arsenal]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@Oct 5 2004, 09:43 PM
Edwards alluded to some investigations into some wrondoings and shady deals while Cheney was the boss at Halliburton. Is that relevant?

Also, what is with Cheney's "these guys aren't qualified" business? Both Kerry and Edwards are far more qualified to be the president than the president was when he took office. What was he? Governor of Texas for three years and a part owner of the Texas Rangers before that? It doesn't make sense to try to pull that one out but it seems the Democrats will let them get away with it. If you ask me, signing a cheque for Nolan Ryan doesn't qualify you for much more than signing a cheque for Nolan Ryan.

Yes, it is relavent, and it does look bad for Cheney.
You can find a link about the investigation here

I don't care who you are, if you are supposed to be represnting the people, your party or what ever. If you aren't showing up for 70% of the votes, you aren't doing your job.

[arsenal]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@Oct 5 2004, 09:50 PM
By the way, I can already tell we are going to disagree constantly, but it's nice to have a new nemesis on board. The others I tend to disagree with(Tranny, DFF in particular) have become quite predictable, foul smelling and rather easily rattled. I wouldn't know them to see them, but I am convinced that they are physically quite unattractive, mentally challenged and hygienically deficient.

I respect your opinion, I just hope you to respect mine as well.
Thats why WWII was fought. So we where free to have our own opinion.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by arsenal+Oct 5 2004, 10:51 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (arsenal @ Oct 5 2004, 10:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-RougeUnderoos@Oct 5 2004, 09:43 PM
Edwards alluded to some investigations into some wrondoings and shady deals while Cheney was the boss at Halliburton. Is that relevant?

Also, what is with Cheney's "these guys aren't qualified" business? Both Kerry and Edwards are far more qualified to be the president than the president was when he took office. What was he? Governor of Texas for three years and a part owner of the Texas Rangers before that? It doesn't make sense to try to pull that one out but it seems the Democrats will let them get away with it. If you ask me, signing a cheque for Nolan Ryan doesn't qualify you for much more than signing a cheque for Nolan Ryan.

Yes, it is relavent, and it does look bad for Cheney.
You can find a link about the investigation here

I don't care who you are, if you are supposed to be represnting the people, your party or what ever. If you aren't showing up for 70% of the votes, you aren't doing your job. [/b][/quote]
I thought that attendance record stuff was a good point but it didn't seem to stick too well though. More than once Cheney went off on a sentence like "he showed up for just 42 per cent of the votes in in 2000 and missed 4 out of 9 votes on proposition A12B and voted 19% of the time against a 13% tax cut for people making less than 46%the median income". Obviously I made that up , but that's how it sounded to me and I pay a lot of attention to this stuff. People that don't -- well, it probably sounded worse to them.

[300spartans]

I think the point of the VP debate is to keep the focus on the Presidential candidates. Therefore, Edwards did a much better job as he mentioned what Kerry and he would do alot whereas Cheney hardly mentioned Bush.

Cheney did throw out some pretty obvious lies. The statement about never meeting Edwards before has already been proven false with photo evidence showing the two together.

300S

[TheCommodoreAfro]

Originally posted by arsenal+Oct 6 2004, 01:43 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (arsenal @ Oct 6 2004, 01:43 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-RougeUnderoos@Oct 5 2004, 09:31 PM
Wow.

I know nothing of internet rules. Is it possible that the Soros people picked up on the blunder and within minutes secured the domain factcheck.com?

Domain was registered on Feb 4, 2004.
Even if it was registered imediately after the slip-up, it wouldn't show up for 24-36hrs.

The other posibility is a domain hi-jacking. But I doubt that happened.

WHOIS information for factcheck.com:

[whois.domainnamesales.com]
Registrant:
Name Administration Inc. (BVI)
Box 10518 A.P.O.
Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands B.W.I.
KY

Domain name: FACTCHECK.COM

Administrative Contact:
Domain, Administrator admin@nameadmininc.com
Box 10518 A.P.O.
Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands B.W.I.
KY
+1.345.946.6879
Technical Contact:
Domain, Administrator admin@nameadmininc.com
Box 10518 A.P.O.
Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands B.W.I.
KY
+1.345.946.6879


Registrar of Record: DomainNameSales
Record last updated on 12-Sep-2004.
Record expires on 04-Feb-2007.
Record created on 04-Feb-2004.

Domain servers in listed order:
NS1.15X.NET 66.199.187.170
NS2.15X.NET 66.199.187.171


Domain status:
REGISTRAR-LOCK [/b][/quote]
Hijacking is a strong word.

Lots of companies buy all sorts of variants on their name to protect them from this kind of thing. Less smart ones forget to do this and this kind of thing happens.

Kinda funny really.

You'd also think that the white house would be used to this kind of tactic, with what's on their .com extension and all...

(don't go there during work hours)

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by 300spartans@Oct 6 2004, 05:34 AM
I think the point of the VP debate is to keep the focus on the Presidential candidates. Therefore, Edwards did a much better job as he mentioned what Kerry and he would do alot whereas Cheney hardly mentioned Bush.

Cheney did throw out some pretty obvious lies. The statement about never meeting Edwards before has already been proven false with photo evidence showing the two together.

300S

Cheney and Edwards have met at least three times says this article:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...0812EDT0530.DTL

Polls showing a split on who might have won.

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10...main/index.html

Regarding the Justice Department investigation of a Halliburton violation of the Foreign Corruption Act, this paragraph caught my eye from a link provided:

But a Technip official told NEWSWEEK that the Halliburton subsidiary, Kellogg, Brown & Root, was the chief principal and decision-maker in the venture.

The rumour du jour last week was that Halliburton would be seeking to sell Kellogg, also the principle contractor for Halliburton in Iraq, because the business culture (less than honest dealings) within the company had such a bad smell that they simply wanted to get away from it.

Cowperson

[TheCommodoreAfro]

Slate Review # 1 in

Did Edwards Do Enough?

Here Comes the Spin

SquakBox Poll

Jim Lehrer Hosts some more post-debate debate

A partisan look from both sides

Here's your Wednesday morning link dogpile on the debate. Enjoy.