December 31, 2005

Photoshop Opportunity?
— Ace

The header of the Democratic Party blog:

Again, the theory seems to be that if you can't actually give the unhinged left all they want in terms of policy pronouncements, you can appease them by mimicking their juvenile, fight-fight-fight tough-guy-pussy tone.

Thanks to Kevin.

Posted by: Ace at 08:27 AM | Comments (181)
Post contains 48 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Well, it could use some leaping kittens and Domo-Kun.

Posted by: SarahW at December 31, 2005 08:39 AM (jqVs9)

2 "Kicking Ass"? Sounds like the donkeys have been eating jimson weed. (symtoms include "hyperexcitability followed by depression". Have Al Gore and Howard Dean been eating at the same salad bar?)

Posted by: pst314 at December 31, 2005 08:50 AM (7cTig)

3 "Kicking Ass"? Shouldn't it be more like, "Cowering in Fear and Betraying America"?

Posted by: DaveP. at December 31, 2005 09:03 AM (4dxlt)

4 "Sucking ass and giving a reach around to America's enemies".

Posted by: digitalbrownshirt at December 31, 2005 09:07 AM (AlU3k)

5 all that's needed to make their blog perfect is the disclaimer:

"This blog does not represent the policies, opinions, or official positions of the Democratic Party"

Posted by: BumperStickerist at December 31, 2005 09:17 AM (LpVNp)

6 Ima wunderin why them white flaggers picked a pitcher of my wheat field rat cher in the Red State homeland. And if I ain`t mistaken "Kicking Ass" was the name of a paiute injun renown fer his skill at pervidin his tribe wit lotsa rats, gophers n lizards!

Ain`t gotta lot of book larning but I got enuff reckonin to stick wif the Re-publikcans, yessireebobalouie....

Posted by: Cletis Smif at December 31, 2005 09:31 AM (ywZa8)

7 considering the image... Smoking Grass!

Posted by: Madfish Willie at December 31, 2005 09:47 AM (SyfL7)

8 The Pube Party motto should be Sucking bin Ladens Dick.

Posted by: at December 31, 2005 10:12 AM (wu2mi)

9 Republican Party motto: Blood in the mud for Halliburton. Your kids, our stock earnings.

Posted by: at December 31, 2005 10:15 AM (wu2mi)

10 Oh yeah, I forgot that this was a blood for oil war, that's why gas is so cheap at the pump.

Keep talking the same way. Keep losing elections.

Posted by: digitalbrownshirt at December 31, 2005 10:22 AM (AlU3k)

11 IT Has Nothing to do with the price at the pump. Halliburton is an oil field services company, not an oil company. Cheney gets his money whether one drop is pumped or one million. He quadrupled his wealth since George started this little war for profit.

Posted by: at December 31, 2005 10:31 AM (wu2mi)

12 Yes, yes. Keep talking.

Posted by: Karl Rove's Id. at December 31, 2005 10:33 AM (JV5Qt)

13 Cheney sold his Halliburton stock in August of 2000. I think that was before the "war for oil."

Posted by: WC Varones at December 31, 2005 10:36 AM (oWtUt)

14 By the way, I gotta ask. How does it feel to be morally inferior to scheming Washington fatcats and all those elections they leave in their wake as they BLOODFOROILHALLIBURTON?

Or whatever you drooling simps are calling it in shorthand these days. Doesn't it just drive you nuts that these evil neocon plots make the world a far better place than anything you could do if you tried?

Posted by: Sortelli at December 31, 2005 10:36 AM (JV5Qt)

15 Cheney sold his Halliburton stock in August of 2000. I think that was before the "war for oil."

*sputter* Insider trading! Because he knew it would be a quagmire!

That screech of metal on metal was a moonbat's brain changing gear without a clutch.

Posted by: Sortelli at December 31, 2005 10:38 AM (JV5Qt)

16 Talk about OLD NEWS...

Can't the wingnuts on this thread come up with something other than the usual Rush, O'Reilly,
Hannity, Savage and Coulter blather?

"Cowering in Fear and Betraying America"?

"Sucking ass and giving a reach around to America's enemies."

"The Pube Party motto should be Sucking bin Ladens Dick."

And if these Bush sycophants think the little creep in the White House is so almighty fucking powerful...where is this Bin Laden guy he promised to take out?

If these idiots could yank their heads out of Bush's ass for a few minutes they just might be able to think for themselves...instead of towing the standard right wing line.

Posted by: Gene at December 31, 2005 10:42 AM (leJWb)

17 Ace, the only way to increase commenters is to increase the level of stupid people who read your blog. Rightwing News has a few regular stupid liberal trolls, and thus generates a couple of hundred post argument threads.

Atrios is all stupid liberal trolls, so they get, like four hundred comments.

One of the things I like about this blogs is the quality of commenters. You wouldn't want to sacrifice that for quantity, unless you're just a big blogads whore.

Posted by: adolfo velasquez at December 31, 2005 10:43 AM (EOI6D)

18 where is this Bin Laden guy he promised to take out?
Posted by Gene at December 31, 2005 03:42 PM


Silly bastard. Dick Cheney's cock keeps Bin Ladin in a cage as a pet. The cock only lets Bin Ladin out occasionally to release a tape and scare up the voters, you know, like right before the 2004 election.

Posted by: adolfo velasquez at December 31, 2005 10:45 AM (EOI6D)

19 Gene -

I've never listened to Rush. O'Reilly annoys me. Hannity I'm vaguely aware is on Fox News. Savage - I don't know who that is. Coulter - I tried to read one of her articles once, and her writing style annoyed me so much I stopped.

Am I allowed to have an opinion?

Posted by: steve_in_hb at December 31, 2005 10:46 AM (spTw1)

20 "instead of towing the standard right wing line"

Yeah, so recently I call this towing company and they say where are you at and I'm like, I'm a moonbat, I live in an asylum, and they say, you want us to come tow a car from an asylum? and I'm like, no, its not a car, its a line, and they say, you want us to tow a line, what do you mean a line, and I'm like, yeah, its just your standard right wing line and they say we cant do that probably but we'll send someone out to take a look at it and I'm like don't placate me, so they say, what's wrong with the line, and I'm like, its metaphor is pretty mangled.

Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at December 31, 2005 10:49 AM (w4Bx4)

21 I agree with steve_in_hb, except that I enjoy the screeching of Ann Coulter. She's loud and obnoxious and makes libs pee themselves in anger. That doesn't mean I agree with everything she says.

Who's this Savage person?

Posted by: digitalbrownshirt at December 31, 2005 10:52 AM (AlU3k)

22 If Star Trek ever wanted to create an avian-like humanoid, she would have the job in a minute. A few feathers, some type of multi-colored crest for threat displays. She would blow that Hawk asshole from Buck Rogers away.

Posted by: steve_in_hb at December 31, 2005 10:55 AM (spTw1)

23 I think what Ace had in mind was changing K to L, but I don't really know him well enough to be sure.

A few suggestions:

- We'll produce Ossama after you produce Hoffa.

- Let's stipulate that this is a war for oil, then let the machine rager againsters try to argue THAT wouldn't fall within legitimate national interest.

- Let's try actually using nothing but O'Reiley arguments for a week or so, make it a challenge. They, of course, would remain free to call upon the full spectrum of all of their creative faculties, and maybe come up with some new rhetorical uses of dollar signs in place of the letter S and little equasions of Imperialism, Bu$h, or Cheney with Hitler, Poo, or Devil.

Posted by: Dave Munger at December 31, 2005 11:04 AM (ecJDu)

24 I think Ass just has to continue displaying his Liberal blog envy and he may attrack 4 or 5 more wingnuts to join in with the 3 or 4 regulars he has already.

Posted by: at December 31, 2005 11:11 AM (Vs585)

25 steve_in_hb,
Sure...ALL opinions are welcome...but...at least 90% of what I find here are no more than rigt wing jerkoffs telling the world that anyone who disagrees with our supreme leader is an un-patriotic, terrorist loving cocksucker who doesn't deserve to live in "their" America.

Well, as far as I''m concerned, what happened to "our" America over the past 5 years is pretty sad.


Posted by: Gene at December 31, 2005 11:12 AM (leJWb)

26 Cheney DID NOT sell his stock. He put it in a blind trust until the day he leaves office. (Whether voluntarily or by force). He is still collecting "Deferred Payments" on his salary, too.

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Cheneys_stock_options_rose_3281_last_1011.html

Posted by: at December 31, 2005 11:22 AM (wu2mi)

27 Oh god, if you dumb assholes ever left the country, Gene, I'd have to start working for a living again.

Posted by: Karl Rove's Id at December 31, 2005 11:25 AM (JV5Qt)

28 Lee-I-Thought-You-Were-Already-Dead-Atwater,
I have absolutely NO idea what your comment that I'm somehow expressing "outrage at losing election after election" is in reference to.

My comments were directed at people like you, who have their heads buried so far up Bush's ass they apparently can't muster up an original thought.

But...if you think things are BETTER today, than they were before this idiot took office...then fire back with some examples of where things have gone well for Americans.

Oh, and forget the usual: "we haven't been attacked on American soil since 9/11" bullshit. After the mini-bombing in 1994 we went 7 years without any attacks...right up until numbnut took office and ignored every fucking warning that came his way.

Posted by: Gene at December 31, 2005 11:25 AM (leJWb)

29 Gene an anonymouse, yew ain`t got the brains God give my chickens. When it rains they will look up and drown ifn I don`t flush em to the chicken house.

Dufusses, I ain`t the reason Re-publikcans willa keep on winnin; YOU are!

Much obliged...

Posted by: Cletis Smif at December 31, 2005 11:27 AM (ywZa8)

30 Sorry, Karl...I have no idea what that means.

I don't remember saying anything about leaving the country.

Is it hard to read with your head buried up there?

Posted by: Gene at December 31, 2005 11:29 AM (leJWb)

31 But...if you think things are BETTER today, than they were before this idiot took office...then fire back with some examples of where things have gone well for Americans.

Lower taxes. A great economy. No more stupid ABM treaty. Etcetera.

Posted by: SJKevin at December 31, 2005 11:30 AM (6hzCC)

32 How's that economy doing for ya, Gene? Don't know? No one's talking about it in the news? I WONDER WHY.

What are some other good things that have happened... hmm... I seem to remember some guy with a beard in a spider hole... I liked that a whole lot.

So, let's see, roaring economy at home, Saddam on trial in Iraq, with a democracy taking his place (oh, sorry, that's good for little brown Iraqis as well as us, you colonial-minded twat...), yeah, I just miss those Clinton years. Boy, HE knew how to spy on Americans, that guy.

Posted by: Sortelli at December 31, 2005 11:30 AM (JV5Qt)

33 I think Cletis answered it for you, Gene, but I'd be happy to explain. See, I'm not a political genius or anything, it's just that you're really, really, really stupid.

And you seem to be obsessed with Bush's ass.

As long as people like you make up the Anyone But Bush crowd, my boys will be in control of the White House and Congress for... oh... fifty more years. And I won't have to lift a finger.

Anyone got some funyuns? Or bugles? I need something to pass the time until quittin' time, when I prank call Howard Dean.

Posted by: Karl Rove's Id at December 31, 2005 11:34 AM (JV5Qt)

34 Gene: We didn't say that EVERYONE who disagrees with President Bush is a cocksucking traitor... just that those who put their party before their nation and betray legitimate national interests to try to advace their party agenda were traitorous cocksuckers.

Like, y'know, the majority of Democrats.

It should bother you that an ever-increasing majority of America- including almost ALL military personnell- view you and people like you as being more interested in your party's agenda than in the good of the nation, and as very willing to sell out America for the good of the Democrats. Especially as your party has been moving more and more towards political violence lately.

But if you want to hide behind BDS and ignorance, that's fine with me too- my side wins either way.

Posted by: DaveP. at December 31, 2005 11:34 AM (4dxlt)

35 Well, Clitoris,
Your response should help anyone who didn't already know you were some kind of mutant trailer trash moron, understand the intellectual capacity necessary to become
a Republican.




Posted by: Gene at December 31, 2005 11:35 AM (leJWb)

36 We've discovered a life form immune to irony.

Posted by: Sortelli at December 31, 2005 11:37 AM (JV5Qt)

37 Gene -

I'll tell you some of what I've seen. A string of people coming here not to discuss issues, but rather to hurl canned insults.

Typically the first sentence contains "fascist". There is also a generally sneering use of mock hick phrasing. Some type of allusion to gun racks and trucks. Also, some variation on the Chimpy McHitler when referring to Bush.

Frankly, there is no reason to take these people seriously. They start out with the assumption that Republicans or Conservatives are evil and stupid, not that their fellow citizens are good people who have different political beliefs. How can you have serious discussions with this type of person?

As for "unpatriotic" -

Having reservations about surveillance activities, counter-terrorism tactics, etc is not unpatriotic. However, many of the "liberal" commenters don't really want to talk about trade-offs between privacy vs security, regime change vs realpolitik, etc. They instead take glee in US setbacks, misteps, etc because it helps their political side. That is unpatriotic.

I'm not even a Republican and disagree with a lot of their positions. In other words, I'm the Dems/Libs target audience. But all I see from them is blind anger, petty politicing, sneering elitism, and, at times, a lack of patriotism.

Posted by: steve_in_hb at December 31, 2005 11:41 AM (spTw1)

38 The truth about Cheney's stocks. Not that truth matters to the left.

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.

Posted by: digitalbrownshirt at December 31, 2005 11:44 AM (AlU3k)

39 The 'Booming" economy ended the year with a -0.61 on the NYSE. People LOST money on the Stock Market in 2005.
This site wont let me link to CNN, but you can Google the NYSE YTD figures as well as I.

Posted by: at December 31, 2005 11:45 AM (wu2mi)

40 Geee, thanks, Davey-Boy,

It's always nice to hear from some fucking dolt who throws bullshit right wing innuendos around like confetti.

But, could you possibly provide any shred of evidence of the following:

That Democrats are: "those who put their party before their nation and betray legitimate national interests to try to advace their party agenda were traitorous cocksuckers." (Really? WHO?)

Or...that your charges relates to: "Like, y'know, the majority of Democrats." (Are you a like...Valley Guy?)

Or..."that an ever-increasing majority of America- including almost ALL military personnell- view you and people like you as being more interested in your party's agenda than in the good of the nation." (Really? WHO says?)

Or...that Democrats are: "willing to sell out America for the good of the Democrats." (Really? WHO?)

And...this is the best one: "Especially as your party has been moving more and more towards political violence lately." (Really? WHEN & WHERE?)


Posted by: Gene at December 31, 2005 11:46 AM (leJWb)

41 Lee-You're-An-Asshole,
It's not a joke, moron. He IS dead.

But a better question is this: Why do you use the man's name...especially when anyone who's ever read a fucking book knows he expressed heartfelt remorse over the horrible dirty political tricks and methods he utilized while running campaigns?

You think it's FUNNY trading on someone's name to somehow make yourself look better?

I think it's the sign that you're a very little man.

Posted by: Gene at December 31, 2005 11:51 AM (leJWb)

42 News flash! People lose money on the stock market!

Posted by: at December 31, 2005 11:52 AM (AlU3k)

43 Strange that first you emphatically state that Cheney SOLD his stock in HAL, and when the truth is pointed out, you show that there was a "Gift Trust AGREEMENT" which is NOT binding (according to those left wing wackos at the University of Chicago Law School) and can be changed at any time. The fact that his wife is also listed on that agreement means that she controlls the stock if anything happens to her husband. Good financial planning, BTW.

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:-Mx38qU5El4J:blsa.uchicago.edu/upper%2520class/trusts-estates/trusts-estates-Davis2002.doc+gift+trust+agreement+not+binding&hl=en&client=firefox-a

Posted by: at December 31, 2005 11:56 AM (wu2mi)

44 The booming economy lifted the more representative S&P 500 and the NASDAQ for the year, in spite of a great surge in fuel prices (so much for the blood-for-oil canard).

All the market indices would've risen--and risen more--but for the Fed racheting up interest rates to tamp down the perceived threat of growing inflation caused by those fuel prices and...wait for it...quickening economic growth.

Cordially...

Posted by: Rick at December 31, 2005 11:57 AM (t5P1h)

45 steve_in_hb ,
I agree with much of what you say, but as for the "trade-offs between privacy vs security," I have NO problem with wiretapping, etc...but only if it's done so within the confines of our constitutions and the laws that govern America.

History reveals plenty of such maneuvers, all designed to supposed thwart evil, but in the long run we ALL lose when a president can do whatever "he himself" deems necessary for the good of all Americans.

I think Bush should have used FISA and should get off this "war on terror" bandwagon he uses to explain or defend everything he does.

Personally, I've never see our country so split apart...but that's merely MY opinion.


Posted by: Gene at December 31, 2005 11:59 AM (leJWb)

46 Hey Gene. Welcome back.

Let's talk economy.

Do you get full value for your money?

Well do you?

Posted by: Dave in Texas at December 31, 2005 12:02 PM (k9YTD)

47 Sadly-Sortelli,
So...you actually think:

That we have a "roaring economy at home..."

And that "Saddam on trial in Iraq..."

And we have a true "democracy taking his place"...

And that "I just miss those Clinton years. Boy, HE knew how to spy on Americans, that guy."???

The stock market went up an astounding 1% in 2005, Saddam will use his trial to make fools of Bush and America, if you think there will actually ever be a "democracy" in Iraq you're delusional...and whatever "tapping" Clinton did, was either under the guidlines of FISA or was carried out via the FBI which is NOT goverened by the same laws Bush has broken.

Like I said...pry that little head ouf yours out of Bush's ass and try reading more...and talking less.

Posted by: Gene at December 31, 2005 12:08 PM (leJWb)

48 steve_in_hb ,
I agree with much of what you say


Wow, Gene's really knows how to hurt ya. It's like Mohammed Atta but with words.

Posted by: at December 31, 2005 12:08 PM (w4Bx4)

49 Gene, put me some fucking knowledge here.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at December 31, 2005 12:11 PM (k9YTD)

50 Little-Man-Lee,
Read on:

Lee Atwater Makes a Change:

"I've found Jesus Christ - It's that simple. He's made a difference."
2/91

WASHINGTON, D.C. (FR) - GOP chairman, Lee Atwater, the man behind the hard-ball political tactics of George Bush's 1988 presidential campaign, announced recently that he has "found Jesus Christ."

"It's that simple," said Atwater shortly after being treated for an inoperable brain tumor. "He's made a difference, and I'm glad I've found Him while there's still time." Now the man who turned the release of rapist Willie Horton and the Pledge of Allegiance into national issues in an unrelenting attack on Michael Dukakis during the 1988 presidential campaign wants the world to know about his change toward compassion.

After having destroyed the political reputation of the Democratic candidate, Atwater testified: "I don't hate anyone anymore. For the first time in my life I don't hate somebody. I have nothing but good feelings toward people."

In the most dramatic, spiritual conversion since that of President Richard Nixon's hatchet man, Chuck Colson, Lee Atwater has promised to make peace with those he has mistreated. He now admits that having made disparaging remarks about Columbia attorney Tom Turnispeed's clinical treatment for depression was one of the "low points" of his career.

Posted by: Gene at December 31, 2005 12:12 PM (leJWb)

51 Gene -

I also get very antsy when it come to surveillance where American citizens are on at least one end of the line. However, I don't think the "war on terror" is overhyped/used. There are very hard decisions to be made, some of which are of the lesser-of-two evils type.

I don't really have time to get in to the details of this specific issue. I was just trying to make the point that the current sneering elitism of much of the Dems is counterproductive for both the nation and their party. Throwing words like fascist around is as useless as when right wingers used to mindlessy hurl "Commie" at anybody who disagreed with them on some specific issue.

Posted by: steve_in_hb at December 31, 2005 12:14 PM (spTw1)

52 at December 31,

"Wow, Gene's really knows how to hurt ya. It's like Mohammed Atta but with words."

Sorry...does not compute.

Try it again...this time in English.

Posted by: Gene at December 31, 2005 12:14 PM (leJWb)

53 steve_in_hb,
Point-Counterpoint...accepted.

Posted by: Gene at December 31, 2005 12:16 PM (leJWb)

54 Here are some charts using data from the Federal Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Dep't of Commerce. Savings are nonexistent and wages haven't kept up with the CPI. People have been making less every year since 2001.

http://jec.senate.gov/democrats/Documents/Reports/wed01nov2005.pdf

Posted by: at December 31, 2005 12:17 PM (wu2mi)

55 Sorry...does not compute.

Try it again...this time in English.


I'm not going to placate you, Gene. You're not at least an 8-10.

Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at December 31, 2005 12:18 PM (w4Bx4)

56 Davey-Boy...

When you say: "Gene, put me some fucking knowledge here."

Is this another one of your "coded" messages...and do I need one of those Secret Decoder Rings you share with Ace...to decipher it?

Posted by: Gene at December 31, 2005 12:19 PM (leJWb)

57 Gene, a pilot is landing an airplane. What is he looking at?

Posted by: Dave in Texas at December 31, 2005 12:21 PM (k9YTD)

58 Emperor of Icecream,
Huh?

Posted by: Gene at December 31, 2005 12:21 PM (leJWb)

59 Gene, where's Joe?

Posted by: sandy burger at December 31, 2005 12:26 PM (6hzCC)

60 Davey-Boy,
I think it's time for your nappy, dude.

Take a few more pulls off that crack pipe and get yourself some shut-eye.

Posted by: Gene at December 31, 2005 12:26 PM (leJWb)

61 Sandy Booger,
He died in 1982.

Posted by: Gene at December 31, 2005 12:28 PM (leJWb)

62 is he looking at the runway, or the instruments Gene?

Posted by: Dave in Texas at December 31, 2005 12:30 PM (k9YTD)

63 Have you ever seen a me drink a glass of water?
Well, no, you can't say you have, Gene.

Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at December 31, 2005 12:32 PM (w4Bx4)

64 Davey-Boy,
Are you familiar with the term: irrelavant?

Now, take another hit off that pipe...and move on.

Posted by: Gene at December 31, 2005 12:35 PM (leJWb)

65 Strange that first you emphatically state that Cheney SOLD his stock in HAL, and when the truth is pointed out, you show that there was a "Gift Trust AGREEMENT" which is NOT binding (according to those left wing wackos at the University of Chicago Law School) and can be changed at any time. The fact that his wife is also listed on that agreement means that she controlls the stock if anything happens to her husband. Good financial planning, BTW.

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:-Mx38qU5El4J:blsa.uchicago.edu/upper%2520class/trusts-estates/trusts-estates-Davis2002.doc+gift+trust+agreement+not+binding&hl=en&client=firefox-a

Actually, I only provided a link showing the current nature of his holdings. I'm not the one that brought them up. Now your anonymous argument is that things change.

So we have "current fact" versus "possible future". I don't know how we keep beating you guys.


Posted by: digitalbrownshirt at December 31, 2005 12:38 PM (AlU3k)

66 Emperor of Icecream,

When you say: "Have you ever seen a me drink a glass of water? Well, no, you can't say you have, Gene."

It makes me wonder if you've ever taken an English course...OR if you're sharing that pipe with Davey-Boy.

You two aren't under the covers again...are you?

Posted by: Gene at December 31, 2005 12:39 PM (leJWb)

67 Gene, who's the only important person up on that stage?

Posted by: Dave in Texas at December 31, 2005 12:42 PM (k9YTD)

68 Davey-Boy,
My God...I DO need the Secret Decoder Ring!!!

See if YOU can decipher this one: oblay emay.

Posted by: Gene at December 31, 2005 12:45 PM (leJWb)

69 I'm starting to think that Gene isn't getting the joke.

Posted by: digitalbrownshirt at December 31, 2005 12:45 PM (AlU3k)

70 Strange that first you emphatically state that Cheney SOLD his stock in HAL, and when the truth is pointed out, you show that there was a "Gift Trust AGREEMENT"

Yes, he SOLD his stock, and yes, he is donating all of the proceeds from his options to charity. Yes, he receives ZERO BENEFIT from Halliburton's profits.

Maybe you don't know the difference between stock and options. But what part of ZERO BENEFIT do you not understand?

Better put up your defense-against-facts shield. War for oil! War for oil! Cheney is making millions!

Posted by: W.C. Varones at December 31, 2005 12:48 PM (oWtUt)

71 Gene, this is just the integrity kick I'm on. Do you understand where I'm coming from with integrity?

Posted by: Dave in Texas at December 31, 2005 12:50 PM (k9YTD)

72 I'm not arguing that things change, just pointing out the FACT that Cheney DID NOT sell his HAL stock, and he can pocket the proceeds anytime he leaves office. All 4,000% increase since 9-11-01.

Posted by: at December 31, 2005 12:50 PM (wu2mi)

73 I'm starting to think that Gene isn't getting the joke.

Wait, "starting"? Gene hasn't caught a single quip, even the ones we granny pitched. Dude's not quite advanced enough for the Ace O Spades Lifestyle.

Posted by: Sortelli at December 31, 2005 12:50 PM (Bjdtq)

74 digitalbrownshitinmypants,

Yeah, that's it...

But, c'mon...I know I'm not dealing with a group of intellectuals here...I mean, .you ARE Republicans.

Here's a secred coded message for you, too: ucksay imay ickday.

Posted by: Gene at December 31, 2005 12:51 PM (leJWb)

75 Sadly-Sortelli,
You idiots actually DO think you're witty?

And you REALLY think these moronic comments are "quips"??

You dipsticks are even dumber that I thought.



Posted by: Gene at December 31, 2005 12:56 PM (leJWb)

76 Davey-Boy,
Smoking crack and posting nonsensical comments doesn't have much to do with "integrity."

Have you considered picking yourself up a dictionary?

Posted by: Gene at December 31, 2005 01:00 PM (leJWb)

77 I DO need the Secret Decoder Ring!!!

The whole point of the secret decoder ring is lost . . . if you keep it a secret!
Why didn't you tell Gene, ay?!

Posted by: at December 31, 2005 01:01 PM (w4Bx4)

78 You idiots actually DO think you're witty?

They are idiots, and they're not very witty. Nevertheless, they make me laugh. So lighten up, Gene. Don't make me bring Vinny F'n Falcone in here to ride your ass.

Posted by: sandy burger at December 31, 2005 01:03 PM (6hzCC)

79 I rode Gene's ass once. Could've been a bit tighter.

Posted by: Proud Liberal Vet at December 31, 2005 01:06 PM (/Rdy2)

80 That last comment wasn't me. All these faggots around here lie all the time.

Gene, you were sweet tight, don't let anybody tell you different.

Posted by: Proud Liberal Vet at December 31, 2005 01:08 PM (w4Bx4)

81 "You idiots actually DO think you're witty?

And you REALLY think these moronic comments are "quips"??

You dipsticks are even dumber that I thought."

You hit the nail on the head with that one.

Posted by: at December 31, 2005 01:10 PM (Vs585)

82 Proud Liberal Vet,
Et tu PLV?

che genere di traitor è voi?

Posted by: Gene at December 31, 2005 01:11 PM (leJWb)

83 at December 31, 2005,
Thankzzzzzzzzzz, I felt pretty good about it myself.

Posted by: Gene at December 31, 2005 01:12 PM (leJWb)

84 [President Bush]should get off this "war on terror" bandwagon he uses to explain or defend everything he does.

War on Terror in quotation marks??

You mean when he explains the importance of the Patriot Act?

Or the reason victory in Iraq is important to the War on Terror?

Posted by: Bart at December 31, 2005 01:18 PM (bkMzk)

85 Okay, I have to leave for a party...so...being it's New Yeqar's Eve and I know most of your are probably at the very least, "problem drinkers"...here's a parting joke you may have heard, but what the hell:

Guy's sitting at a bar, telling his friend how drunk he got at a party the night before:
"Man, did I get fucked up last night...and I did something that I'm gonna have a tough time forgetting."
"What did you do," his friend asks.
He says, "I blew chunks."
His friend just shrugs. "So what?"
He says, "No, you don't understand...I REALLY blew chunks."
Again, his friend just shrugs. "Hey, everybody gets sick. I've done it plenty of times."
Now the guy leans in real close, looks around to make sure n one can hear and whispers..."No, no, you don't understand...Chunks is MY DOG."

Happy New Year...even the Republicans.

Posted by: Gene at December 31, 2005 01:24 PM (leJWb)

86 Gene is a very funny guy.

Posted by: Margaret Cho at December 31, 2005 01:26 PM (Bjdtq)

87 Happy New Year...even the Republicans.

Rock on. You too, Gene.

Posted by: sandy burger at December 31, 2005 01:31 PM (6hzCC)

88 Gene,

You made me promise not to tell anyone and here you are blabbing it all over the net!

Posted by: Chunks at December 31, 2005 01:33 PM (wvtyF)

89 "Thankzzzzzzzzzz, I felt pretty good about it myself."

It's funny watching these morons keep congratulating themselves when they are about as clever as a piece of wood.

Posted by: at December 31, 2005 02:45 PM (4XV/D)

90 "Thankzzzzzzzzzz, I felt pretty good about it myself."

It's funny watching these morons keep congratulating themselves when they are about as clever as a piece of wood.


What the fuck do you want from me? Seriously!!! WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU? I give, and give, and give and... this! This is what I get! I'm wasted on you people. WASTED.

Posted by: Irony at December 31, 2005 02:50 PM (Bjdtq)

91 You are wasted all right. Have you and Rush been shooting up together?

Posted by: at December 31, 2005 02:52 PM (4XV/D)

92 It's like rain on your wedding day!

Posted by: Alanis Morrisette at December 31, 2005 03:50 PM (Bjdtq)

93 Well, Republican types, it's been kinda nice actually having a "Battle of Facts" with those who are actually interested in real discussion.

Good Tidings to you and yours, and may '06 be better for America than this past year of corruption, cronyism, and incompetence.

The Juvie attacks are stupid. I'll be back in the future to have REAL info exchanges, rather than ad hominem et alla waste of bandwidth.

Happy 2006 to ALL Citizens of the Goos Old U. S. of A.

Posted by: at December 31, 2005 03:52 PM (wu2mi)

94 THAT WAS A TYPO, LOOK IT UP (Sorry)

Posted by: at December 31, 2005 03:56 PM (wu2mi)

95 Well, it's rather impossible for two facts to battle, as logically neither of them can be mutally exclusive and remain a fact.

So I guess "battling facts" is asserting that one side has their heads rammed up someone's posterior. Your contributions have been enlightening.

Ironically.

Posted by: Irony at December 31, 2005 03:57 PM (Bjdtq)

96 As it was once said (Rush fans take note)

"Everybody is entitled to their own opinion, but Nobody is entitled to their own facts."

THAT is the difference between the Ditto Heads (who don't research) and the educated populace.

Posted by: at December 31, 2005 04:02 PM (wu2mi)

97 I provided a fact, you provided an opinion about something that might happen in the future. That's assuming you're the moron that kept bringing up Cheney's holdings. It's hard to tell when you don't own your own posts.

Posted by: digitalbrownshirt at December 31, 2005 04:05 PM (AlU3k)

98 Take it easy, bucko, there's not that much of me to go around. Quit while you're ahead.

Posted by: Irony at December 31, 2005 04:06 PM (Bjdtq)

99 PS, I won on the Cheney Halliburton stock / trust fund / Rush talking point thing.

I won on the "Booming economy" thing with FACTS put out by the US GOVERNMENT

I won on the point that wages have been regressing.

Talking points are fine, but the Republicans need more than personal attacks, and saying "WE WIN" over and over..

THIS IS NOT A FREAKING FOOTBALL GAME!

ANNNNND, WHY AREN'T THE YOUNG REPUBLICANS QUITTING COLLEGE AND SIGNING UP FOR THE MILITARY??

Posted by: at December 31, 2005 04:08 PM (wu2mi)

100 Hey, hey, Irony. Buck up. Anonoclown is just slamming Rush Limbaugh rather than engage in substantive argument.

This is my territory now.

Posted by: Logical Fallacy at December 31, 2005 04:08 PM (Bjdtq)

101 Aw yeah. You know it always comes down to me, don'tcha? I swear, if it wasn't for me and bitter anger, the Democrats wouldn't have a platform.

Posted by: Chickenhawk meme at December 31, 2005 04:10 PM (Bjdtq)

102 Prove me wrong, and at the same time prove Rush right.

Posted by: at December 31, 2005 04:11 PM (wu2mi)

103 I won on the "Booming economy" thing ...

I won on the point that...

Talking points are fine, but ... need more than personal attacks, and saying "WE WIN" over and over..

THIS IS NOT A FREAKING FOOTBALL GAME!


I can't keep up with this guy!!!

Posted by: Irony at December 31, 2005 04:16 PM (Bjdtq)

104 Prove me wrong, and at the same time prove Rush right.

Man, this guy is like a late Christmas present!

Posted by: Fallacy at December 31, 2005 04:19 PM (Bjdtq)

105 ANNNNND, WHY AREN'T THE YOUNG REPUBLICANS QUITTING COLLEGE AND SIGNING UP FOR THE MILITARY??

You guys got me. I thought it was a real moonbat comment until that last line.

Posted by: digitalbrownshirt at December 31, 2005 04:28 PM (AlU3k)

106 Send it or unwrap it. Saying I'm wrong doesn't PROVE it. If you are saying that the Federal Bureau of Labor Statistics are liars, you are saying that the Bush Administration is a bunch of liars (proven time and again bt Scotty McClellan)

Prove it, and gloat.

Posted by: at December 31, 2005 04:28 PM (wu2mi)

107 Seriously, DBS, don't look at me. I think he meant it.

Posted by: Irresponsible Alcohol Consumption at December 31, 2005 04:32 PM (Bjdtq)

108 Saying I'm wrong doesn't PROVE it. If you are saying that the Federal Bureau of Labor Statistics are liars, you are saying that the Bush Administration is a bunch of liars (proven time and again bt Scotty McClellan)

Prove it, and gloat.

I am gloating, pal, I am. You're the best thing that ever happened to me.

So, will I be staying in your room? You don't mind if I kinda, you know, snuggle up behind you?

We just go so well together, you and me. Will you still feel the same in the morning, though?

Posted by: Fallacy at December 31, 2005 04:35 PM (Bjdtq)

109 Will you still feel the same in the morning, though?


Ha ha ha. You're kidding, right?

Posted by: Irresponsible Alchohol Consumption at December 31, 2005 04:36 PM (Bjdtq)

110 That was for fallacy (i.e. the Christmas present remark,) but it is open to all. This isn't a football game where winning is the ONLY thing. The Republicans have shown that they can "win" whether legally or not.

They have PROVEN that they can't govern, and instead want to rule.

Posted by: at December 31, 2005 04:39 PM (wu2mi)

111 You just sit riiiight there at the keyboard, I'll get you a refill.

Posted by: Irresponsible Alchohol Consumption at December 31, 2005 04:42 PM (Bjdtq)

112 Republicans seem able to GET the job, but not DO the job.

Posted by: at December 31, 2005 04:43 PM (wu2mi)

113 No one to kiss tonight, huh? That's okay. I'm here for you.

Posted by: Irresponsible Alcohol Consumption at December 31, 2005 04:48 PM (Bjdtq)

114 An aside to the guy who runs this Exceptional blog.

That picture of Tony Blair is the worst one I've ever seen. C'Mon, nothing wrong with Tony 's pictures, and if you wanted him to look betterthere are several more available.

JMHO

Posted by: at December 31, 2005 04:48 PM (wu2mi)

115 STFU

Posted by: Blogads at December 31, 2005 04:48 PM (Bjdtq)

116 An aside to the guy who runs this Exceptional blog.

Me and him are out having a good time. But that's okay. I still have time for you. Alone. At home.

Posted by: Irresponsible Alcohol Consumption at December 31, 2005 04:50 PM (Bjdtq)

117 Heeeey! It's IAC! It's been awhile. You guys having a party? Can I come?

Posted by: Shotgun In The Mouth at December 31, 2005 04:52 PM (Bjdtq)

118 Wha--?? Friggin' NO! Man! You know you and me don't go good together, Shotgun! Beat it! You only bring tragedy!

Posted by: Irresponsible Alcohol Consumption at December 31, 2005 04:53 PM (Bjdtq)

119 I been with this thread since the beginning.

Posted by: Tragedy at December 31, 2005 04:54 PM (Bjdtq)

120 I'm in a different time zone. The Bubbly is cold, the hats and horns start in a few, the Republicans go down in '06 when Abramhoff starts squealing like the pid that he is, Rove gets the Fitzgerald treatment, Cheney "Resigns" due to "Health Reasons"....

AND King George gets booted out of Public Housing.

Posted by: at December 31, 2005 04:55 PM (wu2mi)

121 Hello!

Posted by: Fantasy at December 31, 2005 04:56 PM (Bjdtq)

122 G.W. just came out with a surprise Happy Thanksgiving announcement.

Let's not spoil it for him.

Posted by: Gene at December 31, 2005 05:04 PM (leJWb)

123 You're not only in a different time zone, you castrato troll, you're in an entirely different universe. But hey, enjoy your stay in reality. You may learn a thing or two while you're here.

Posted by: zetetic at December 31, 2005 05:46 PM (/Rdy2)

124 Don't you worry about that reality thing, anono-man, I got your back. You don't need reality with me around.

You and me, we're "reality-based".

Posted by: Irresponsible Alcohol Consumption at December 31, 2005 05:55 PM (Bjdtq)

125 Is there such a thing as irresponsible semen consumption? I sure hope not...

Posted by: Proud Liberal Vet at December 31, 2005 05:57 PM (/Rdy2)

126 Just taking up the Gantlet that was thrown down when I mentioned Flush Rim Job (since y'all seem to be overly anal curious.)

If I was a late X-Mas present, why didn't the Ditto-Head take me apart.

Again, prove me wrong, and in turn prove Flush right.

Posted by: at December 31, 2005 06:06 PM (wu2mi)

127 Oh look, the castrato troll made up an insulting name for Limbaugh. I think I'll make one up for the troll. Let's see... how about Donk Felcher?

Posted by: zetetic at December 31, 2005 06:16 PM (/Rdy2)

128 Look, I'm an open guy. You can spend time with Alcohol and me. In fact, we go better together. Alcohol does not get along with my bastard brother Logic, who is an asshole and I hate him. So, me, you, Alcohol, let's do it. Let's party. Bring along Fantasy, and see if she can get that saucy Denial to come along.

Just, you know, not so rough, okay? I'm starting to feel really used. Be a little sparing with your attentions, 'cause I'm starting to chafe from all the times you've whipped me out in this thread.

Could we at least have some variety? Maybe you could get off of your homoerotic facination with Rush here. It's not that I'm jealous, it's just that no one seems to be responding to it. Between you and me, I don't think as many people care about him as you.

You could try some appeals to authority or begging the question. That's always nice for beginners.

Posted by: Fallacy at December 31, 2005 06:18 PM (Bjdtq)

129 AHEM, I mentioned RUSH, and I was instantly attacked with homo slurs. When I said Flush Rim Job, I also stated the OBVIOUS FACT that you folks are overly obsessed with sphincters (because you defend the one in 1600)

Once again, PROVE that ANYTHING I have posted is not backed up with facts, rather than opinions.

When you can do that, you will prove me wrong, and therefore, by default, Rush right.

Ball is in your ciurt.

(Remember, I'm a "late Christmas present....")

Posted by: at December 31, 2005 06:27 PM (wu2mi)

130 What's that about a phallus?

Oh, never mind.

Fags!

Posted by: Proud Liberal Vet at December 31, 2005 06:27 PM (/Rdy2)

131 When you can do that, you will prove me wrong, and therefore, by default, Rush right.

I wish you knew how to quit me!

Posted by: Fallacy at December 31, 2005 06:29 PM (Bjdtq)

132 Once again, PROVE that ANYTHING I have posted is not backed up with facts, rather than opinions.

Sigh - I've tried to get to this thread about 5 times today, but things kept getting in the way. Looks futile for tonight and tomorrow - maybe tomorrow night.

Posted by: geoff at December 31, 2005 06:33 PM (f+QmI)

133 Get away from him! He's mine! If anyone introduces him to my bastard stepbrother Logic, I'll... I'll... I HATE YOU ALL.

Posted by: Fallacy at December 31, 2005 06:38 PM (Bjdtq)

134 How can we argue your points when we're not even sure what they are? There's at least a couple of libs commenting in this thread without signing their posts so it's hard to tell which ones are yours. I'm still wondering about the Cheney stock thing. How exactly was that proven?

Posted by: digitalbrownshirt at December 31, 2005 06:40 PM (AlU3k)

135 Logic trumps FANTASY every time. Fallacy is the same as LIE. (False Truth)

Posted by: at December 31, 2005 06:40 PM (wu2mi)

136 Near as I can tell, Cheney said (on tape, and later denied...LIE) he had severed ALL financial ties to HAlliburton.

When it turned out that he didn't, he said that he meant "Current ties". So, the fact that his shares are in a trust, and he (rightly so) is still collecting deferred pay (which he EARNED) means that Cheney isn't keeping tabs on his own shit, so how on Earth can he be trusted to keep on top of the entire World?

Posted by: at December 31, 2005 06:47 PM (wu2mi)

137 The link I provided earlier proves that you're an idiot. That's a fact.

You'll also notice that I provided a link to back up my claim, rather than pulling it out of my ass like you have done.

You might not be familiar with pay structure at large corporations. If you had read the linked information it would have explained to you why Cheney has received payments from Haliburton. Top officers often have parts of their pay received after they leave because of the taxes. You only get taxed when you get the check, so part of the payment is received later. It's kind of like NFL salary caps in that aspect.

Posted by: digitalbrownshirt at December 31, 2005 06:55 PM (AlU3k)

138 Logic trumps FANTASY every time. Fallacy is the same as LIE. (False Truth)

Shh! Don't talk about our relationship like that! Say something about Rush again, c'mon, go for the ad hominem! Make some more hasty generalizations!

You and me have been hand in hand this entire thread, don't leave me now.

Posted by: Fallacy at December 31, 2005 06:57 PM (Bjdtq)

139 BTW, when you put it in trust, it's normally not kept track of by the portfolio owner. That's the trust part. I guess he's got more important stuff to worry about than his personal finances. Hard for you to believe I'm sure.

Posted by: digitalbrownshirt at December 31, 2005 06:58 PM (AlU3k)

140 I like pink elephants.

Posted by: Fantasy at December 31, 2005 06:58 PM (Bjdtq)

141 I like pink elephants too.

Posted by: Irresponsible Alcohol Consumption at December 31, 2005 07:00 PM (Bjdtq)

142 I like pink buttholes. Just not on chicks.

Happy New Year, fags!

Posted by: Proud Liberal Vet at December 31, 2005 07:02 PM (/Rdy2)

143 Gee, Digi Brownshirt. That is EXACTLY what I just said. I didn't feel the need to use (I was going to use Baseball Players) Athletes, because I thought that the TWO times that I stated that Cheney EARNED his pay would be obvious to those who actually READ posts, rather than jump into attack mode once the name Cheney and Halliburton come up.

It's too bad that your instantaneous knee-jerk reaction precludes you from even READING a post. Too much spoon-fed ideology, I guess.

Posted by: at December 31, 2005 07:03 PM (wu2mi)

144 Ahh. Nice dismissal.

Thanks, for a second there, I thought you were getting honest.

Posted by: Fallacy at December 31, 2005 07:04 PM (Bjdtq)

145 Honest? Today's Donks have never heard of the word!

Posted by: zetetic at December 31, 2005 07:06 PM (/Rdy2)

146 Here you go.

Notice the irrevocable assignment mentioned on page 8? That means that they can't take them back later, something that you mentioned earlier.

Now, how about a link to that Cheney lie you mentioned? I haven't heard that one before.

Posted by: digitalbrownshirt at December 31, 2005 07:07 PM (AlU3k)

147 Aaaah, has anyone seen... ahhh... Irreshponshble Alcohol Consumption? I need ... aaaah... to catch a ride home with him...

Posted by: Teddy Kennedy at December 31, 2005 07:08 PM (Bjdtq)

148 Press the Meat with Tim Russert. Do your own fact checking. Google works

Posted by: at December 31, 2005 07:09 PM (wu2mi)

149 Sorry about missing what you said earlier. I missed it before I pressed the post key. You're still a liar and an idiot though by pushing the stock option lie.

So explain how he's making money on Halliburton again.

Posted by: digitalbrownshirt at December 31, 2005 07:10 PM (AlU3k)

150 Jesus, Teddy, even I think you're a slob. Let the girl drive this time, okay?


Happy New Year, you louts, I am Audi.

Posted by: Irresponsible Alcohol Consumption at December 31, 2005 07:10 PM (Bjdtq)

151 Once again that "AGREEMENT" is NON-BINDING (i.e.the word "Agreement")

Refer back to my link to the University of Chicago Law School site.

Thanks for trying, though.

Posted by: at December 31, 2005 07:15 PM (wu2mi)

152 Where's the link? I missed it in the 150+ comments in this topic.

Posted by: at December 31, 2005 07:17 PM (AlU3k)

153 HEY, EAST COASTERS...

HAPPY NEW YEAR!!

Let's clean up the Government, and let WE THE PEOPLE run the show instead of the lobbyists!

Posted by: at December 31, 2005 07:19 PM (wu2mi)

154 In a nutshell, the "Agreement" is kind of like a "first pick" item for a lousy basketball team. Unless / until the "Agreement" is changed to a "Covenant" it isn't worth the paper it's printed on. The "Agreement is only valid as long as Cheney is VP, and Lynn is the OTHER signatoree. So that means that Lynn is still in charge of the thing no matter WHAT happens to Dick.

EXCELLENT financial planning on Dick's part.

Posted by: at December 31, 2005 07:25 PM (wu2mi)

155 Is this the relevant section of anon's link?

Brainard v Commissioner (p 586)(7th 1937)

1. Rule – where a promise to declare a trust of property not yet in existence is unsupported by consideration, and the intention to hold the property in trust is not manifested until sometime after its acquisition by declarant, the property is not received in trust and is therefore taxable to the declarant.
1. An interest not yet in existence (future profits from stock trading) cannot constitute the property of a trust.
2. While an individual can contract to provide the property of the trust in the future, such a contract is not binding unless supported by consideration.


I am certainly not a lawyer, but it's not clear to me that handing over the disposition of the stock options (a 'real' property) is the same as promising future stock profits. Do you have a decent source that interprets this the way you do?

Posted by: geoff at December 31, 2005 07:47 PM (f+QmI)

156 Options, by their very name, infer FUTURE gain.

See my previous post linking to the U of C.

Posted by: at December 31, 2005 07:51 PM (wu2mi)

157 Is anyone going to let me suck their cock or not?

Posted by: zetetic at December 31, 2005 07:51 PM (4XV/D)

158 The point of Options Trading is that a person bids on a price IN THE FUTURE, and has the option of buying said stock, or not. Since it is a price bid on in the Future it's similar to Futures trading on livestock, and other real commodities.

HAL is a Service Industry, and therefore isn't as succeseptible to the vagaries of weather, or glut on the market.( i.e. lotsa pigs coming to slaughter at the same time. Remember when McDonald's and Burger King etc. ALL had a lot of Bacon Cheese Burger specials? LOTSA HOGS that year.)

Same thing for HAL. Future Options on a bet made in 2001.

Posted by: at December 31, 2005 07:58 PM (wu2mi)

159 Options, by their very name, infer FUTURE gain.

No, there's a clear difference between promising future profits on stocks you control vs. ceding your control to the trustee. Options have an intrinsic value, while future profits do not. As to your link - either I excerpted the relevant portion or should guide me more accurately to the section you mean.

As far as the agreement vs. convenant thing goes, here's the definition of legal agreements from American Heritage:

1. A properly executed and legally binding contract.
2. The writing or document embodying this contract.

This is consistent with my personal experience, where an agreement is a legally enforceable contract. Perhaps you can be more explicit in describing the alleged loophole here.

Posted by: geoff at December 31, 2005 08:08 PM (f+QmI)

160 The "AGREEMENT" is valid as long as Cheney is VP. If he wanted to divest himself of ALL HAL he could / would have. The "Agreement" is NOT binding unless / until he ACTUALLY signs off on the Do-Re-Mi.

He HASN'T.

Perhaps you should e-mail him and ask WHY? He has already stated that he "Has severed ALL ties to HAL..." which was proved to be a LIE, then he lied about saying it which was Proven to be a LIE, and then he has an accounting wordsmith trying to show that what IS really isn't.

Either he has NO financial ties with HAL, or he is a LIAR / War Proffiteer.

Period. He Must come clean.

Posted by: at December 31, 2005 08:16 PM (wu2mi)

161 The "AGREEMENT" is valid as long as Cheney is VP.

That's not correct. The termination clause says that the agreement can be terminated if:

1) the Adminstrative Agent breaches the agreement;

2) the Options have been exercised or have lapsed, and all resulting Stock has been sold, and the net proceeds have been distributed.

Cheney's status is not tied to the agreement, as far as I can see. Maybe your eyes are keener than mine.

3)

Posted by: geoff at December 31, 2005 08:23 PM (f+QmI)

162 The "Agreement" is NOT binding unless / until he ACTUALLY signs off on the Do-Re-Mi.

What didn't he sign? He certainly signed the agreement. We are both talking about the Gift Trust Agreement, aren't we?

The "3)" in the previous comment should be ignored.

Posted by: geoff at December 31, 2005 08:33 PM (f+QmI)

163 HAPPY NEW YEAR TO THE CENTRAL TIME ZONE!!!

May 2006 bring us a Government OF, BY, and FOR the people.

Posted by: at December 31, 2005 08:38 PM (wu2mi)

164 AAAUUGHH!! He signed an "AGREEMENT" NOTa transfer of assets (real or future). The "Agreement" only means that IF he disolves his holdings, those 3 entities get "Something" (which is NOT spelled out, so they could each get a Buck, and fulfill the "Agreement").

Posted by: at December 31, 2005 08:43 PM (wu2mi)

165 What? The agreement assigns an agent exclusive rights to dispose of Cheney's stock options. There is no hold-back.

The agreement states:
2.a) The Administrative Agent shall exercise all vested but unexercised Options in its discretion . . .

The agreement says that Cheney's options can be exercised "without consultation with the donors." He transferred complete control over their disposition to the Agreement Agent, there is no guarantee that they won't be gone by the time his term is finished, and given Halliburton's market performance, there's certainly no incentive for the Agent to delay in exercising the Options and selling the stocks as they vest.

I doubt that he's allowed to transfer the options to a 3rd party without a modification to Halliburton's ESOP - that's certainly true in the small companies I've worked in, though larger companies may be more lax on that point. So he did the next best, and morally equivalent, thing.

Posted by: geoff at December 31, 2005 08:59 PM (f+QmI)

166 HAPPY NEW YEAR, MOUNTAIN TIMERS

LET'S HOPE ABRAMHOFF SINGS LIKE A CANARY NEXT TUESDAY, AND DeLAY AND HIS CULT OF CORRUPTION GOES DOWN LIKE A WHITE HOUSE REPORTER (Male Prostitute) NAMED GANNON / GUCKERT has been doing for God knows How long, and Jesus approved of it, cuz Jesus talks to the President...He said so!!!

Posted by: at December 31, 2005 09:02 PM (wu2mi)

167 Nice use of the elipses (...) {{for those who don't know the terminology}}

Print the whole paragraph, and the sub headings (and referrence numbers)

When talking about "vested" assets that means REAL VALUE at the time. Go on with the Aadditional codicil, and the 3,800 + Per cent increase in value is getting into some REAL numbers.

Look it up. Cheney is mouse poor now, but when he retires...WOW!!!

Posted by: at December 31, 2005 09:13 PM (wu2mi)

168 Cheney is mouse poor now, but when he retires

Estimates of Cheney's wealth a few years ago ranged from $30 - 100 million. Without the options.

Print the whole paragraph, and the sub headings (and referrence numbers)

Why don't you just post the relevant parts of the whatever documents you see fit, because I can't find anything here to support your statements. I don't see a reference to a codicil in the agreement, other than Appendices A & B, neither of which offer any loopholes. Come on, if this stuff is at your fingertips, you can make your case with very little effort. At least give me a hint where to find it.

It's certainly nowhere to be found in the Gift Trust Agreement.

Posted by: geoff at December 31, 2005 09:28 PM (f+QmI)

169 Oh, and the reason I didn't post more of the paragraph is that I have to transcribe it from a .pdf image. There was nothing nefarious as you go down the clauses; in fact it made the case in favor of Cheney that much stronger. But show me the loophole path and convince me that it will provide significant value to Cheney, and then I will most likely buy into at least part of the Cheney-didn't-properly-divest-himself argument.

I'm beginning to believe that you have no idea what text and clauses followed the ellipses.

Posted by: geoff at December 31, 2005 09:38 PM (f+QmI)

170 Hey, Administrator, that Pic of Tony Blair LOOKS LIKE HE IS TRYING TO GROW A MOHAWK!

I've seen pics of Tony, and I know they are available.

Nice site, BTW, and for the most part, nice folks and intelligent too.

The name calling happens everywhere. I'll recommend this place to my friends (MOST of them are Republicans) The Dems are nice too.

Thanks to the guy who posted this site on Kickin' Ass.

(He did a trackback "Ping" thinking he was being clever)

More Dem Fact Checkers to come.

Anyhow,

HAPPY NEW YEAR TO THE MOUNTAIN AND PACIFIC TIME FOLKS!

MAY WE TAKE BACK OUR COUNTRY FROM THE POWER HUNGRY NEO-CONS.

America, Love it...or put up with it (Republican motto)

AMERICA, WORTH FIGHTING FOR!!

(Democratic Motto)

Posted by: at December 31, 2005 09:42 PM (wu2mi)

171 I've seen pics of Tony, and I know they are available.

You realize, I hope, that Ace doesn't pick the ads that run on his site - BlogAds does. And that BlogAds didn't pick the picture of Tony Blair - the advertiser did. So complaining on this site is two layers away from the problem. But you can fix that by clicking on the picture and complaining directly to the source.

Posted by: geoff at December 31, 2005 09:55 PM (f+QmI)

172 THX for the tip, geoff.

Happy New Year to YOU, and YOURS.

Getting ready for MINE!!!

See y'all often. And thanks once again to W C Varones for turning us on to this site.

HAPPY NEW GOVERNMENT IN THE NEW YEAR!!!

Posted by: at December 31, 2005 10:26 PM (wu2mi)

173 I like pink buttholes. Just not on chicks.

It's your lucky day, PLV. Ace has a pink butthole and he is not a chick.

Posted by: at January 01, 2006 05:07 AM (7AJk5)

174 Do you enjoy pretending to be me and then responding to yourself asshole? I may have been wrong that you are Sortelli and if so I apologize to Sortelli. Whoever you are why don't you be a man and let me know who you are? Oh wait, as a Republitard, you are a coward. Better to keep hiding and shaking in the dark. Don't piss yourself girly-boy.

Posted by: Proud Liberal Vet at January 01, 2006 05:15 AM (mpIFY)

175 Looks like the jackasses should get branded right in its ass area

Posted by: spurwing plover at January 01, 2006 09:06 AM (JtcRt)

176 You use me and use me and then never ever mention me! Bastards!!!!

Posted by: Simple Bullshiite at January 01, 2006 08:45 PM (l1oyw)

177 Yes, I talk tough from the safety and anonymity of my computer, but I'm really just a punk-ass wuss piece of shit. That's why I pretend to be other people on here, because I can't deal with the stupid worthless waste of time that is my life. Now if you'll excuse me I have to go stick a French tickler up my ass.

Posted by: Proud Liberal Vet at January 01, 2006 08:52 PM (/Rdy2)

178 Oh, and by the way, as everyone here already knows, I'm not a vet. I'm just a punk-ass junior high school loser and I'd piss my pants if any of the adults here ever called my bluff.

Ooh, I just love those French ticklers!

Posted by: Proud Liberal Vet at January 01, 2006 08:54 PM (/Rdy2)

179 I CANT STAND THE SIGHT OF WORMS OR LOOK AT MICROSCOPTIC GERMS BUT TECHNOCOLORED PACADERMS ITS REALY TOO MUCH FOR ME

Posted by: spurwing plover at January 02, 2006 09:49 AM (AlCYT)

180 Anybody else notice that, at least lately, this Dem Blog is running 2 or 3 posts per day with an open thread every single day? Sometimes it's the only post of the day.

Why don't these places just set up a damned bulletin board and be done with it?

It appears, Ace, that the formula for increased traffic is to go with 1 open thread each day and then post less than 5 more stories per day.

This does, of course, provide the side benefit of more drinking time.

Posted by: Joe Ego at January 02, 2006 09:55 PM (l/1o8)

Posted by: sdfg58h at November 28, 2011 01:23 AM (R9wBA)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
154kb generated in CPU 0.19, elapsed 1.535 seconds.
62 queries taking 1.4288 seconds, 417 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.