PDA

View Full Version : Kerry Ad Falsely Accuses Cheney on Halliburton



Lqskdiver
10-06-2004, 07:39 PM
Hopefully this will put an end to the Haliburton accusations on this board. But know some of you, not likely. Still, repeating a lie does not make it a truth! So read on and read all. Especially you OD! It will clearly explain the situation with Cheney and Haliburton.


Oh, this is from www.factcheck.ORG. Yes, Cheney plugged the wrong address, but hey, we're not all techies!

And I admit, there are some articles against the bush campaign there as well.


================================================== ==




Kerry Ad Falsely Accuses Cheney on Halliburton
Contrary to this ad's message, Cheney doesn't gain financially from the contracts given to the company he once headed.

September 30, 2004
Modified: September 30, 2004
eMail to a friend Printer Friendly Version

Summary



A Kerry ad implies Cheney has a financial interest in Halliburton and is profiting from the company's contracts in Iraq. The fact is, Cheney doesn't gain a penny from Halliburton's contracts, and almost certainly won't lose even if Halliburton goes bankrupt.

The ad claims Cheney got $2 million from Halliburton "as vice president," which is false. Actually, nearly $1.6 million of that was paid before Cheney took office. More importantly, all of it was earned before he was a candidate, when he was the company's chief executive.


Analysis



A Kerry ad released Sept 17 once again attacks Cheney's ties to Halliburton, implying that Cheney is profiting from the company's contracts in Iraq. That's false.


The ad isn't subtle. It says, "As vice president, Dick Cheney received $2 million from Halliburton. Halliburton got billions in no bid contracts in Iraq. Dick Cheney got $2 million. What did we get?" And it implies that Cheney lied to the public when he said in a TV interview that "I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind."

But as we document here, Cheney has insulated himself financially from whatever might happen to Halliburton. The Kerry ad misstates the facts.

$2 Million

To start, the $2 million figure is wrong. It is true that Cheney has received just under $2 million from Halliburton since his election, but nearly $1.6 million of that total was paid before Cheney actually took office on Jan. 20, 2001. Saying Cheney got that much "as vice president" is simply false.

We asked Cheney's personal attorney to document that, and he did, supplying several documents never released publicly before:

A Halliburton pay statement dated Jan 2, 2001 shows just under $147,579 was paid that day as "elect defrl payou," meaning payout of salary from the company's Elective Deferral Plan. That was salary Cheney had earned in 1999, but which he had chosen previously to receive in five installments spread over five years.
Another pay statement dated Jan. 18 shows $1,451,398 was paid that day under the company's "Incentive Plan C" for senior executives. That was Cheney's incentive compensation -- bonus money -- paid on the basis of the company's performance in 2000. Cheney had formally resigned from the company the previous September to campaign full time, but the amount of his bonus couldn't be calculated until the full year's financial results were known.
Cheney's personal financial disclosure forms, together with the pay statements just mentioned, show that Cheney has received $398,548 in deferred salary from Halliburton "as vice president." And of course, all of that is money he earned when he was the company's chief executive officer. Cheney was due to receive another payment in 2004, and a final payment in 2005.

The Kerry ad isn't the only place the false $2 million figure appears. The Democratic National Committee also gets it wrong on their website. The dates of the Halliburton payments don't appear on Cheney's personal financial disclosure form from 2001, and the DNC assumed -- incorrectly as we have shown -- that all the 2001 payment were made after he took office.

Deferred Salary

The $398,548 Halliburton has paid to Cheney while in office is all deferred compensation, a common practice that high-salaried executives use to reduce their tax bills by spreading income over several years. In Cheney's case, he signed a Halliburton form in December of 1998 choosing to have 50% of his salary for the next year, and 90% of any bonus money for that year, spread out over five years. (As it turned out, there was no bonus for 1999.) We asked Cheney's personal attorney to document the deferral agreement as well, and he supplied us with a copy of the form , posted here publicly for the first time.

Legally, Halliburton can't increase or reduce the amount of the deferred compensation no matter what Cheney does as vice president. So Cheney's deferred payments from Halliburton wouldn't increase no matter how much money the company makes, or how many government contracts it receives.

On the other hand, there is a possibility that if the company went bankrupt it would be unable to pay. That raises the theoretical possibility of a conflict of interest -- if the public interest somehow demanded that Cheney take action that would hurt Halliburton it could conceivably end up costing him money personally. So to insulate himself from that possible conflict, Cheney purchased an insurance policy (which cost him$14,903) that promises to pay him all the deferred compensation that Halliburton owes him even if the company goes bust and refuses to pay. The policy does contain escape clauses allowing the insurance company to refuse payment in the unlikely events that Cheney files a claim resulting "directly or indirectly" from a change in law or regulation, or from a "prepackaged" bankruptcy in which creditors agree on terms prior to filing. But otherwise it ensures Cheney will get what Halliburton owes him should it go under.

Cheney aides supplied a copy of that policy to us -- blacking out only some personal information about Cheney -- which we have posted here publicly for the first time.

Stock Options

That still would leave the possibility that Cheney could profit from his Halliburton stock options if the company's stock rises in value. However, Cheney and his wife Lynne have assigned any future profits from their stock options in Halliburton and several other companies to charity. And we're not just taking the Cheney's word for this -- we asked for a copy of the legal agreement they signed, which we post here publicly for the first time.

The "Gift Trust Agreement" the Cheney's signed two days before he took office turns over power of attorney to a trust administrator to sell the options at some future time and to give the after-tax profits to three charities. The agreement specifies that 40% will go to the University of Wyoming (Cheney's home state), 40% will go to George Washington University's medical faculty to be used for tax-exempt charitable purposes, and 20% will go to Capital Partners for Education , a charity that provides financial aid for low-income students in Washington, DC to attend private and religious schools.

The agreement states that it is "irrevocable and may not be terminated, waived or amended," so the Cheney's can't take back their options later.

The options owned by the Cheney's have been valued at nearly $8 million, his attorney says. Such valuations are rough estimates only -- the actual value will depend on what happens to stock prices in the future, which of course can't be known beforehand. But it is clear that giving up rights to the future profits constitutes a significant financial sacrifice, and a sizeable donation to the chosen charities.

"Financial Interest"

Democrats have taken issue with Cheney's statement to Tim Russert on NBC's Meet the Press Sept. 14, 2003, when he said he had no "financial interest" in Halliburton:

Cheney (Sept. 14, 2003): I've severed all my ties with the company, gotten rid of all my financial interests. I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and haven't had now for over three years. And as vice president, I have absolutely no influence of, involvement of, knowledge of in any way, shape or form of contracts led by the Corps of Engineers or anybody else in the federal government.

Shortly after that, Democratic Sen. Frank Lautenberg released a legal analysis he'd requested from the Congressional Research Service. Without naming Cheney, the memo concluded a federal official in his position -- with deferred compensation covered by insurance, and stock options whose after-tax profits had been assigned to charity -- would still retain an "interest" that must be reported on an official's annual disclosure forms. And in fact, Cheney does report his options and deferred salary each year.

But the memo reached no firm conclusion as to whether such options or salary constitute an "interest" that would pose a legal conflict. It said "it is not clear" whether assigning option profits to charity would theoretically remove a potential conflict, 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.

Actually, the plain language of the Office of Government Ethics regulations on this matter seems clear enough. The regulations state: "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.

Conflict of Interest

It is important to note here that Cheney could legally have held onto his Halliburton stock options, and no law required him to buy insurance against the possibility that Halliburton wouldn't pay the deferred compensation it owes him. Both the President and Vice President are specifically exempted from federal conflict-of-interest laws, for one thing, as are members of Congress and federal judges.

And even federal officials who are covered by the law may legally own a financial interest in a company, provided they formally recuse themselves -- stand aside -- from making decisions that would have a "direct and predictable effect on that interest." And Cheney says he's done just that.

Cheney says he takes no part in matters relating to Halliburton, and so far we've seen no credible allegation to the contrary. Time magazine reported in its June 7 edition that an e-mail from an unnamed Army Corps of Engineers official stated that a contract to be given to Halliburton in March 2003 "has been coordinated w VP's [Vice President's] office." But it wasn't clear who wrote that e-mail, whether the author had direct knowledge or was just repeating hearsay, or even what was meant by the word "coordinated," which could mean no more than that somebody in Cheney's office was being kept informed of contract talks.

Indeed, a few days later it was revealed that Cheney's chief of staff Lewis "Scooter" Libby was informed in advance that Halliburton was going to receive an earlier contract in the fall of 2002 -- to secretly plan post-war repair of Iraq's oil facilities. But being informed of a decision after it is made is a far cry from taking part in making it. And according to the White House, Libby didn't even pass on the information to Cheney anyway.

So to sum up, this Kerry ad's implication that Cheney has a financial interest in Halliburton is unfounded and the $2 million figure is flat wrong.


Sources



"Vice President Dick Cheney discusses the war with Iraq, the economy and other topics," NBC News "Meet the Press" 14 Sep 2003.

Jack Maskell, "Official's Stock Options In and Deferred Compensation From a Corporation as a "Financial Interest" of an Executive Branch Official in Such a Corporation," Memorandum , American Law Division, Congressional Research Service, 22 Sep 2003.

US Code of Federal Regulations,TITLE 5, CHAPTER XVI--OFFICE OF GOVERNMENT ETHICS, PART 2640--INTERPRETATION, EXEMPTIONS AND WAIVER GUIDANCE CONCERNING 18 U.S.C. 208 (ACTS AFFECTING A PERSONAL FINANCIAL INTEREST) 5CFR2640.103(b)

Timothy J. Burger and Adam Zagorin, "The Paper Trail: Did Cheney Okay a Deal?", Time magazine, 7 June 2004: 42.

Larry Margasak, "Cheney never heard plan to give work to Halliburton for rebuilding of Iraq," The Associated Press 16 June 2004.

Lqskdiver
10-06-2004, 10:03 PM
Bump for the business majors.

Come on, guys, and least one wisecrack! Hell, say he gets paid in monopoly money, but at show that you read two paragraphs!

ODShowtime
10-06-2004, 10:40 PM
I had a pretty good reply done up and it fuckin dumped it for me...

Bottom line, Cheney's Halliburton is being sued by it's shareholders for accounting fraud and accused of overbilling in Iraq. Why would I believe their financial statements?

Lqskdiver
10-06-2004, 11:12 PM
They're being fined for not disclosing a change in accounting procedures. It's a common thing, but the SEC is cracking down on everyone.

A while back, AOL got hit with the same fines for using different account procedures during a fiscal year.

I knew you'd still refuse to believe anything but wrongdoing against man by the ALL POWERFUL megalith Haliburton, but BOTTOM LINE: This shoots any holes in yours' and your tree hugging buddys about Deferred Compensation for current contracts in Iraq. That is if you actually read the article which was done by an independent institution.

:rolleyes:

TREE HUGGERS RULE!!

BTW, what's with the zep cover, stoner?

Just something lying around in your dorm room?

ODShowtime
10-07-2004, 08:26 AM
Originally posted by Lqskdiver
BOTTOM LINE: This shoots any holes in yours' and your tree hugging buddys about Deferred Compensation for current contracts in Iraq. That is if you actually read the article which was done by an independent institution.

BTW, what's with the zep cover, stoner?

Just something lying around in your dorm room?

That deferred compensation insurance took the wind out of my sails, let me tell you. But I'm not done yet. I will strike back. Or maybe I'll change my mind. I'd rather not believe in a evil empire if I don't have to.

And when it comes to Led Zeppelin and "relaxation", don't knock it till you try it.

ODShowtime
10-07-2004, 12:25 PM
Originally posted by Lqskdiver
They're being fined for not disclosing a change in accounting procedures. It's a common thing, but the SEC is cracking down on everyone.

BOTTOM LINE: This shoots any holes in yours' and your tree hugging buddys about Deferred Compensation for current contracts in Iraq. That is if you actually read the article which was done by an independent institution.


I told you I'd strike back:


Halliburton accused of accounting fraud
Charge against firm, top executives, made in new lawsuit
Reuters
Updated: 8:07 a.m. ET Aug. 6, 2004

NEW YORK - A new filing in a shareholder class-action lawsuit against Halliburton Co. contends that the world’s No. 2 oilfield services company and several top executives intentionally engaged in “serial accounting fraud” from 1998 to 2001, court papers show.

The filing accuses Houston-based Halliburton of systematic accounting misdeeds far more wide-ranging than those charged in a recent civil lawsuit by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Halliburton agreed on Tuesday to pay $7.5 million to settle SEC charges that it misled investors by not disclosing an accounting change that boosted profit in 1998 and 1999.

Among other things, the filing accuses Halliburton of inflating results, failing to disclose a big asbestos verdict in a timely manner, and being unable to account for $3.1 billion of profit and cash.

In a statement, Halliburton called the lawsuit an abusive attempt to extort money from current shareholders and smear the company and its employees.

The allegations in the 101-page filing and the SEC action cover two years when U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney was Halliburton’s chief executive officer, though he was not named as a defendant in either proceeding.

The filing with the U.S. District Court in Dallas was first reported by the New York Times. Reuters obtained a copy.

Named as defendants are Halliburton and four executives; David Lesar, formerly the company’s chief operating officer and now its CEO; Douglas Foshee, a former chief financial officer and now CEO of El Paso Corp.; Gary Morris, another former CFO; and Robert Muchmore, a former controller.

Muchmore also settled with the SEC, and like Halliburton neither admitted nor denied wrongdoing. Morris did not settle, and is being sued by the SEC in federal court in Houston.

El Paso and lawyers for Foshee and Muchmore could not immediately be reached for comment.

Systematic fraud alleged

Halliburton said the Dallas court had “preliminarily approved Halliburton’s settlement of approximately 20 class-action securities cases ... and ordered that no further complaints be filed.”

These cases included two filed by class-action specialist Scott & Scott LLC of Colchester, Connecticut, on whose behalf the filing was made, the company said.

The new complaint, attached as an exhibit to a motion to file it, is a bid to “generate publicity, while violating the spirit but not the letter of that order,” Halliburton said. “Many of their complaints have already been asked and already been answered. It is virtually a recycled lawsuit.”

The filing contends that Halliburton’s Kellogg Brown & Root engineering and construction unit inflated results through artificially boosting revenue or understating expenses.

One employee said supervisors told her to do “whatever it took to make (projects) come back to plan,” or profitability, the filing said.

The filing also said Halliburton did not disclose a $130 million jury verdict in Sept. 2001 in an asbestos case involving its Harbison-Walker unit, and that five weeks after they learned of the verdict, Lesar and Foshee told analysts that news on asbestos liabilities was “positive.”

On Dec. 7, 2001, after news of the verdict and other asbestos verdicts became public, Halliburton shares fell 42 percent.

The filing also said that from 1998 to 2001 about $3.1 billion “went missing” as the company generated $1 billion of profit and $2.1 billion from asset sales, yet ended the period with roughly the same amount of debt and cash as it started.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5620776/

ODShowtime
10-07-2004, 12:32 PM
Originally posted by Lqskdiver
Hopefully this will put an end to the Haliburton accusations on this board. But know some of you, not likely. Still, repeating a lie does not make it a truth! So read on and read all. Especially you OD!

First off, I just discussed with a friend, and our best guess on the accounting change is that they probably changed their method of accounting for depletion of oils wells. Just a guess. But that's a classic way to inflate profits in the short run. It's not just a little technical snafu like you tried to paint it.

Second, they are being sued for systematic acounting fraud by their shareholders.

One of the issues? $3.1 billion in revenues missing!!!!!

Weren't you just advocating that Dick Cheney's compensation is all clearly and properly disclosed?

You gotta do better cause you just made my point and my day:p

Warham
10-07-2004, 02:47 PM
I don't see Cheney's name in any of this. He's not even a defendant in this case.

ODShowtime
10-07-2004, 03:00 PM
Originally posted by Warham
I don't see Cheney's name in any of this. He's not even a defendant in this case.

So you're willing to believe that every chief executive in the company except Cheney was involved? Warham. :rolleyes:

From what I understand about the current presidential administration, I find it preposterous that Cheney would be so in the dark about a corporation he was the Chief Executive Officer of. Preposterous.

Big Train
10-07-2004, 03:05 PM
It's funny what you don't know about when your not participating..

These arguments get circular. If we had time stamped video of Cheney, a sperm sample, exact timelines, tax returns, bank statements etc...you still wouldn't change your position on him, cause he looks evil. You know your right after all.

Not knocking you at all OD, just saying that the people who have made up their minds have their convictions set in stone. You could argue I am the same side of that coin and maybe your right. I would argue however, that fact is more on the conservative side...natch..

Warham
10-07-2004, 03:19 PM
Hey OD,

Halliburton only had five executives? There are four that are defendants, and you think Cheney was the fifth.

A billion dollar corporation with just five executives? I think the company I work for has more than that, and it's probably not even close to a $50 million company.

A big stretch there OD.

ODShowtime
10-07-2004, 03:20 PM
Originally posted by Big Train
It's funny what you don't know about when your not participating..

These arguments get circular. If we had time stamped video of Cheney, a sperm sample, exact timelines, tax returns, bank statements etc...you still wouldn't change your position on him, cause he looks evil. You know your right after all.

Not knocking you at all OD, just saying that the people who have made up their minds have their convictions set in stone. You could argue I am the same side of that coin and maybe your right. I would argue however, that fact is more on the conservative side...natch..

First off, I'm glad you read this.

You're right Train... Many people do have their convictions set in stone already.

I was considering relenting until I took one google and realized my adverary above had left himself wide open to destruction. I mean, we talk about how Cheney's compensation is on the up & up. But there's $3.1 Billion in missing revenues. Maybe there's another explanation. Most likely the money was spread around more than simply dumped in a Swiss numbered account for Cheney.

But the bottom line is that this looks horrible. Anyone who understand the situation should be very curious and suspect. It's as simple as that. Now I understand that 'under-investigation' and 'convicted' are very different things. But like the one dude said in one of the Cheney articles I didn't post: "Where there's smoke, there is fire"

Personnaly, I think this thread right here demonstrates perfectly what's going on and how this administration has been compromised.

For the record, my co-worker and I noticed today that Arthur Anderson audited both Halliburton and Enron. I think that's suspicious too since it's documented that you could buy Authur Anderson auditors, and Enron was quite cozy with bush&friends.

It's all starting to come together. One more reason why these scumbags will do anything to stay in office.

ODShowtime
10-07-2004, 03:22 PM
Originally posted by Warham
Hey OD,

Halliburton only had five executives? There are four that are defendants, and you think Cheney was the fifth.

A billion dollar corporation with just five executives? I think the company I work for has more than that, and it's probably not even close to a $50 million company.

A big stretch there OD.


stick with the big picture here buddy;)

Warham
10-07-2004, 03:29 PM
With this line of thinking, I could tie George Soros, a big Dem donator to the 527 ads, and George Bush. Soros owned a third of Harkin Energy, and George Bush at the time was on their board of directors.

Does this mean that Soros is an evil, twisted man because he had business dealings with Bush?

ODShowtime
10-07-2004, 03:40 PM
Originally posted by Warham
With this line of thinking, I could tie George Soros, a big Dem donator to the 527 ads, and George Bush. Soros owned a third of Harkin Energy, and George Bush at the time was on their board of directors.

Does this mean that Soros is an evil, twisted man because he had business dealings with Bush?

I know Karken went under (good job there GW!!!), but did they misplace $3.1 billion in revenue? Did they receive no bid contracts for myriad aspects of an unnecessary war?

Also, being an investor of a company is much different than being an officer of one.

Warham
10-07-2004, 03:51 PM
Soros owned the company.

I just figure if we can link Enron to Bush, and if we like Bush to Soros, and if we link Soros to the heirarchy of the Democratic Party, I could make the leap that the Dems are corrupt as well.

You have no facts to back up Cheney received any of this money, but your personal view of him seems to suggest you would believe this. And if you believe Cheney is an evil man, then you must think Bush is, because they are linked through the Administration.

I'm telling you that I can link anybody to anybody, similar to the six degrees of separation.

I gave the story of Soros as an example.

Bush may be friends with Ken Lay from Enron. Does that mean Bush had something to do with Enron's misdealings?

Quite a stretch.

ODShowtime
10-07-2004, 04:09 PM
man, you're like a junkyard dog

Warham
10-07-2004, 04:26 PM
GRRRRRRRRRRRR!

Did you just think you would be able to steamroll us?

:D

ODShowtime
10-07-2004, 05:24 PM
Originally posted by Warham
GRRRRRRRRRRRR!

Did you just think you would be able to steamroll us?

:D

Well, you helped me bring out even more points, which is good.

Warham
10-07-2004, 05:28 PM
Hey, what are debates for? :D

This more out of pure exercise than trying to change somebody's mind.

You know that Brian, Ashcroft, nor I could ever change the minds of FORD, Cock or Phil, and vice versa, but hey, it's fun to try.

Big Train
10-07-2004, 05:37 PM
If it was kickback city, 3.1 Billion can go missing awful quite, doubly so in international waters.

The fact is as of yet there is no proof of any of these accusations. To compare halliburton to Enron is also not on the level, as Enron was able to demonstrate where all that money went..the schemes, the tape recordings. There are none of those things present in this situation. All you have is a hunch and a bunch of assumptions. Adds up to nada...

ODShowtime
10-07-2004, 06:26 PM
Well... they're not gonna spell it out for you or he'd be in jail already!

Big Train
10-07-2004, 06:44 PM
Well no, but if you are any indication, there are a lot of people who want his head on a platter. Lib journalists salivate daily about the prospect, yet nothing happens.

ODShowtime
10-07-2004, 07:16 PM
Probably has something to do with him sealing all his files, not that I blame him.

Big Train
10-07-2004, 07:32 PM
If there were any money in a bank account ANYWHERE, it generally requires electronic bank accounts. Like I have asked in many other threads, if it were someplace, don't you think somebody would have dropped a dime, especially if those transfers happened via a foreign bank?

ODShowtime
10-07-2004, 08:21 PM
Originally posted by Big Train
If there were any money in a bank account ANYWHERE, it generally requires electronic bank accounts. Like I have asked in many other threads, if it were someplace, don't you think somebody would have dropped a dime, especially if those transfers happened via a foreign bank?

Dick Cheney most likely has friends that OWN banks. He most certainly could bribe anyone he needed to. It's not that crazy!!!!

Big Train
10-07-2004, 09:20 PM
It is...the scenarios keep getting farther and farther out and keep requiring more and more assumptions into to make them float, which is what I constantly rail against ford for.

Leaps of logic and faith. If you can rule in that Cheney's friends own banks, how can then rule out that some employee of said bank wouldn't rat him out for a couple of shillings?

ODShowtime
10-07-2004, 09:52 PM
Originally posted by Big Train
the scenarios keep getting farther and farther out and keep requiring more and more assumptions

Well, I learned a thing or two from this thread. But I think if you take a step back and read what I presented here you should have a healthy skepticism of Dick Cheney's dealings. I am sure there's always more we could learn and new disclosures will help fill in the picture.

I still think he's a scumbag though.:D

Lqskdiver
10-08-2004, 12:54 AM
Man, you still with this??

My only point is that you DON'T have proof or evidence that he is receiving payment on current contracts in Iraq.

You go on a tirade on how his dishonesty implicates him and Haliburton otherwise. Your mental!

Go on believing what you want! It wasn't my intent to change your beliefs just point out your discrepencies. Like I said, you're gonna go on hating Cheney and this administration even if Jesus Christ, (the real Jesus Christ and not the "false prophet" who visits these boards) himself were to come down and endorse Bush.

But hey, as Ozzy used to say:

"KEEP ON SMOKING THEM JOINTS!"

Big Train
10-08-2004, 02:59 AM
OD,

I read what you presented and even went on a few tangents of fancy with you and I remain unconvinced. Nobody has shown me conclusive proof of any direct link to Cheney or demonstrated how he benefitted. To continue on that path is to slander him without proof. It's useless and unproductive.

If you FEEL he is evil, fine, but you have yet to prove anything else.

Halliburton: Weapon of Mass Construction...

ODShowtime
10-08-2004, 10:19 AM
"Where there's smoke, there is fire"

Big Train
10-08-2004, 01:42 PM
stop, drop and roll...

I hanker for a hunk of cheese..

Only YOU can prevent forest fires...

We are still were we started on this.

ODShowtime
10-08-2004, 02:05 PM
beans and rice beans and rice

I'm going insane from fucking studying

ODShowtime
10-08-2004, 02:07 PM
Originally posted by Lqskdiver
Go on believing what you want! It wasn't my intent to change your beliefs just point out your discrepencies.
But hey, as Ozzy used to say:

"KEEP ON SMOKING THEM JOINTS!"

You've failed in your intent.

Angel
10-08-2004, 06:01 PM
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/dickcheney/halliburton.html

Big Train
10-08-2004, 06:59 PM
That's a great load of random facts...what are they driving at?

ELVIS
10-08-2004, 07:03 PM
Nothing

Lqskdiver
10-08-2004, 11:14 PM
Originally posted by ODShowtime
You've failed in your intent.

Hey, OD, figures you support Kerry.

You could debate yourself.