's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions

Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )

Why the Republicans Should be Worried.(7 posts)

Why the Republicans Should be Worried.dr hoo
May 6, 2003 7:47 AM

Just for you moneyman. Includes references to SEC 10-K filings. Enjoy.
Henry Waxman - unimpeachable sourcemoneyman
May 6, 2003 8:09 AM
Come on, hoo. You can do better than that. Using Henry Waxman's findings as a source? There's a conclusion looking for support if ever there was one. And citing SEC filings as a source? Those reports are not verified by any governing authority, and we have to trust that the information provided is true and accurate. You, of all people, should be looking at 10-K filings with a skpetical eye, especially when written by the notorious, evil Haliburton.

The Pew Research Center is at least independent. Henry Waxman? How would you score one of those poor students assigned to your indoctrination camps, aka classroom, if he/she were to use that as a source? Haven't I taught you anything????

read closer, oh myopic one.dr hoo
May 6, 2003 10:06 AM
Waxman cites the following sources in his letter:

the president's state of the union address

state department reports

financial times

washington post

wall street journal

department of treasury reports

abc news

baltimore sun


fortune magazine

mother jones (ok, this one is liberal as it gets)

halliburton press releases and other documents

and others.

So if a student turned in a paper with those sources, I would actually be very happy. It would show a lot of legwork! Just because you don't like what it says, you can't say "waxman" and make it go away.

The larger point, though, is that this and similar issues will be thrown at the white house for the next 18 months. THAT is a potential source of worry for the republicans. We in america love our heros. We love it even more when we get to tear them down after we build them up.

I know you love Cheney. Maybe that is why you are so blind to his willingness to profit from helping the enemies of america?
I'm not sure this is bad...TJeanloz
May 6, 2003 10:17 AM
So the Democrats spend a year slinging mud at Dick Cheney - and they really villify him. Then at the convention, Bush announces that somebody else (say, Colin Powell) will be the Vice-Presidential candidate. You've wasted a year of perfectly good mud on a person not even running for President.

Realistically, I don't think it matters to Cheney that he spends another term as VP - he isn't really a viable Presidential candidate. So even if you get Cheney to resign in disgrace, I don't think it would hugely rock the Republican boat.
No, but, stepping back a minuteOldEdScott
May 6, 2003 11:01 AM
and thinking about the best interests of the country, I'd be willing to trade another four years of Bush/Powell for ridding the country of Cheney's evil influence.
Yes, we shouldn't believe any of it. That source couldn'teyebob
May 6, 2003 10:06 AM
possibly be accurate.

of course if ...sacheson
May 6, 2003 2:37 PM
... Bill Clinton had any ties with Halliburton, I'm sure the conservatives on this board would be singing a different tune. We'd probably be spending butt-loads of taxpayer money to figure out what connection Bill had ... and it would be justified because we all love a good consipiracy.

Remember - it's not about what happens, it's who makes it happen.