A new all time low for partisan politics

[Danzig]

Of course I read the article, which included this, which shows Cheney indeed stilll had links, something rupe claims Cheney no longer had. And also in the article it shows haliburton becoming a top contractor during that same time. Coincidence? Lol. Sure.


response to an inquiry from Senator Frank R. Lautenberg, Democrat of New Jersey, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service reported last year that an official’s deferred salary and stock options could amount to “a continuing financial interest” in the company involved.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by jms62

So you think it is OK that Haliburton received Billions in contracts pushing its stock price up because Cheney said he was donating it to charity? Your "unbiased" article doesn't address when Cheney left office. You know with the Options that he could now exercise and Sell at a price that Reflected the Billions in Revenue that was steered towards Haliburton. Again I thank you for the compliment on my intelligence. I think you may achieve average intelligence yourself if you can train yourself to think deeper and not simply regurgitate the party line pabulum that you google.

I didn't google anything. That was the article that Danzig posted the link to. I simply reposted the link.

By the way, I appreciate the compliment that you think that I at least have the potential to achieve average intelligence. I am going to work on it. I think it is a difficult but achievable goal. I appreciate the encouragement.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

Of course I read the article, which included this, which shows Cheney indeed stilll had links, something rupe claims Cheney no longer had. And also in the article it shows haliburton becoming a top contractor during that same time. Coincidence? Lol. Sure.


response to an inquiry from Senator Frank R. Lautenberg, Democrat of New Jersey, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service reported last year that an official’s deferred salary and stock options could amount to “a continuing financial interest” in the company involved.

The CRS did not say that deferred salary "did" amount to a "continuing financial interest". It said that it "could", meaning that it's a grey area. The bottom line is that they found no wrongdoing. It said to avoid conflict of interest that the relationship needs to be disclosed, and that in fact was does in this case. Here is the whole paragraph from your article:

In response to an inquiry from Senator Frank R. Lautenberg, Democrat of New Jersey, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service reported last year that an official’s deferred salary and stock options could amount to “a continuing financial interest” in the company involved. The report did not mention Mr. Cheney by name or say that such an arrangement was improper. To avoid conflict of interest, the service said, any official with a continuing interest in a company should include the relationship in public financial disclosure statements, a step Mr. Cheney has taken.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

The CRS did not say that deferred salary "did" amount to a "continuing financial interest". It said that it "could", meaning that it's a grey area. The bottom line is that they found no wrongdoing. It said to avoid conflict of interest that the relationship needs to be disclosed, and that in fact was does in this case. Here is the whole paragraph from your article:

In response to an inquiry from Senator Frank R. Lautenberg, Democrat of New Jersey, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service reported last year that an official’s deferred salary and stock options could amount to “a continuing financial interest” in the company involved. The report did not mention Mr. Cheney by name or say that such an arrangement was improper. To avoid conflict of interest, the service said, any official with a continuing interest in a company should include the relationship in public financial disclosure statements, a step Mr. Cheney has taken.

Rupert. How can you possibly argue that someone doesn't have a continuing financial interest in a company when they have stock options yet to be exercised?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by jms62

Rupert. How can you possibly argue that someone doesn't have a continuing financial interest in a company when they have stock options yet to be exercised?

Stock options surely worth more when a company suddenly moves up about 19 spots on the top contractor list. I'm sure that just happened on its own, that it has nothing whatsoever to do with its former CEO being VP...with money still to come from his former company.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by jms62

Rupert. How can you possibly argue that someone doesn't have a continuing financial interest in a company when they have stock options yet to be exercised?

If you read Danzig's article from the NY Times, it said that the issue was looked into and that no wrongdoing or conflict of interest was found. Until reading the article, I did not know that he still had stock options and that any profit made would go to charity, but according to the article there is nothing improper about that. Cheney did everything by the book in terms making sure that he would not personally profit and in terms of disclosing everything.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

If you read Danzig's article from the NY Times, it said that the issue was looked into and that no wrongdoing or conflict of interest was found. Until reading the article, I did not know that he still had stock options and that any profit made would go to charity, but according to the article there is nothing improper about that. Cheney did everything by the book in terms making sure that he would not personally profit and in terms of disclosing everything.

I see, you didn't know and your entire knowledgebase was that link. At least you weren't wrong

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by jms62

I see, you didn't know and your entire knowledgebase was that link. At least you weren't wrong

That's not fair. He never claimed to be an expert.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by jms62

Nothing like doubling down on the absurd. The "I Don't claim to be an expert" escape clause is tired and old.

Lol

Flock of deer....

[Rupert Pupkin]

Speaking of relocating animals, they are bringing bison back to Alaska. They should have probably consulted with a few of you first to make sure that it's a good idea and to make sure that they are doing it right. Does this plan have all of your approval?

"The first of 100 wood bison aimed at re-establishing a species that went extinct more than a century ago in Alaska were flown Sunday to a rural village."

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fir...id=mailsignout

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Speaking of relocating animals, they are bringing bison back to Alaska. They should have probably consulted with a few of you first to make sure that it's a good idea and to make sure that they are doing it right. Does this plan have all of your approval?

"The first of 100 wood bison aimed at re-establishing a species that went extinct more than a century ago in Alaska were flown Sunday to a rural village."

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fir...id=mailsignout

In your mind does flying in 100 Bison now make your deer relocation program viable?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by jms62

In your mind does flying in 100 Bison now make your deer relocation program viable?

It is possible to relocate animals. It is done all the time with all different kinds of animals. I live in Los Angeles. Occasionally a mountain lion or a bear wanders into the city. When they won't leave, sometimes they will tranquilize them, put them in a crate, and take them back to the hills.

As I said before, it obviously depends on the number of animals. I never said that it could be done in every case or even in most cases. All I said is that instead of just immediately deciding to kill a deer or any type of animal, they should see if there are other options. When there are other feasible options, then I would not be in favor of killing the animals.

So do you approve of the plan to import the wood bison into Alaska?

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

It is possible to relocate animals. It is done all the time with all different kinds of animals. I live in Los Angeles. Occasionally a mountain lion or a bear wanders into the city. When they won't leave, sometimes they will tranquilize them, put them in a crate, and take them back to the hills.

As I said before, it obviously depends on the number of animals. I never said that it could be done in every case or even in most cases. All I said is that instead of just immediately deciding to kill a deer or any type of animal, they should see if there are other options. When there are other feasible options, then I would not be in favor of killing the animals.

So do you approve of the plan to import the wood bison into Alaska?

Do you think you answered my specific question?

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I didn't google anything. That was the article that Danzig posted the link to. I simply reposted the link.

By the way, I appreciate the compliment that you think that I at least have the potential to achieve average intelligence. I am going to work on it. I think it is a difficult but achievable goal. I appreciate the encouragement.

Good post rupe...hope it bears some fruit...j/k

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by jms62

Do you think you answered my specific question?

Did you answer mine? A discussion or debate is so supposed to be a two-way street. I will always be happy to answer your questions as long as you answer mine.

And yes, I did answer your question. I don't know how I could make my position any more clear. For the 10th time, "It obviously depends on the number of animals. I never said that it could be done in every case or even in most cases. All I said is that instead of just immediately deciding to kill a deer or any type of animal, they should see if there are other options. When there are other feasible options, then I would not be in favor of killing the animals."

That is it. I don't how I can make my position any more clear. If here in Los Angeles we had a situation where we ended up with 500 deer in an area where they weren't supposed to be, what would I do if I were in charge? I would get some unbiased experts and see what the options were. I would hope they could somehow be relocated. If it couldn't be done, then it couldn't be done. I would certainly want to hear all the options. If it was immediately suggested that they all be shot, I certainly would not be in favor of that until exploring all other options.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Did you answer mine? A discussion or debate is so supposed to be a two-way street. I will always be happy to answer your questions as long as you answer mine.

And yes, I did answer your question. I don't know how I could make my position any more clear. For the 10th time, "It obviously depends on the number of animals. I never said that it could be done in every case or even in most cases. All I said is that instead of just immediately deciding to kill a deer or any type of animal, they should see if there are other options. When there are other feasible options, then I would not be in favor of killing the animals."

That is it. I don't how I can make my position any more clear. If here in Los Angeles we had a situation where we ended up with 500 deer in an area where they weren't supposed to be, what would I do if I were in charge? I would get some unbiased experts and see what the options were. I would hope they could somehow be relocated. If it couldn't be done, then it couldn't be done. I would certainly want to hear all the options. If it was immediately suggested that they all be shot, I certainly would not be in favor of that until exploring all other options.

Who would pay for this effort?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by jms62

Who would pay for this effort?

why does man drive groups to extinction, or close to it, and then try to save them? it seems....odd.

as for the deer: the whitetail is one of the most adaptable species in this country. the number of deer is far larger than colonial times. they are a nuisance and a danger, and cause thousands of wrecks each year. they should have a herd cull of dramatic proportions and donate all the meat to charities. people move to the suburbs, and go ohhh, look at the pretty deer. and then the pretty deer eat their landscaping. or they attack someone during mating season.

An estimated 1.23 million deer-vehicle collisions occurred in the U.S. between July 1, 2011 and June 30, 2012, costing more than $4 billion in vehicle damage, according to State Farm, the nation’s leading auto insurer.

also cause 200 fatalities annually. we had about 500k deer at the start of the 19th century...today it's about 20 million.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by jms62

Who would pay for this effort?

I would divert the money from lunch programs for poor children.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by jms62

So then I guess you support undermining the office of the president as long as the offenders wear your gang colors

I can't figure out why anyone would want to undermine the President on this great plan. Why would they want to undermine a disastrous plan where the President intentionally bypasses Congress? I can't figure it out. I'm sure they're just doing it to be mean, not to try to undermine a potentially catastrophic plan (a plan which he has no right to implement unilaterally, even if it was a good plan).

Obama does whatever he wants. He obviously doesn't believe in checks and balances. It was the same thing with immigration. He decided that he didn't need congress. He would just do it on his own. It's lucky for us that Obama is a genius and he is always right. I totally trust him to do whatever he wants.

Here is a little info on his great plan. Obama is a great negotiator:

http://freebeacon.com/national-secur...omes-together/

And in case any of you were wondering whether I would want a Republican President to just do whatever he wants when it comes to immigration and foreign policy, regardless of whether congress and the majority of US citizens are against the plans, the answer is "no".

[jms62]

I apologize for only reading the first sentence of your post but anyone that is justifying members of congress reaching out to foreign countries undermine the President of the United States is advocating treason in my mind. We have had many presidents in our history that many disagreed with but this is the first time I can recall something like this happening. Any bullshit propaganda you post for advocating treason doesn't change the facts.