This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
Locked on 07/19/2002 11:14:21 PM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:
Flame war. |
Posted on 07/10/2002 11:04:03 AM PDT by SierraWasp
12:57PM Halliburton responds to Judicial Watch lawsuit (HAL) by Michael Baron Halliburton (HAL) is off 30 cents, or 2.1 percent, to $13.82, in midday action. The company is out with a press release responding to a lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch, a Washington, D.C.-based legal watchdog group. The suit alleges fraudulent accounting practices at Halliburton took place during the period when current vice president Dick Cheney served as its chairman and CEO. Halliburton called the claims in the suit, "untrue, unsupported, and unfounded." The company continued: "We are working diligently with the SEC to resolve its questions regarding the company's accounting procedures. Halliburton has always followed and will continue to follow guidelines established by the SEC and GAAP, General Accepted Accounting Principles."
Myself, I stick with someone of character whom I didn't agree with on all issues, rather than going with someone who mouths platitudes I agree with but has no character.
It is a difficult choice for many. I am comfortable with my decision.
The prior crime would need to be weighed against the damage it's done to the officeholder's ability to continue in his current capacity. Also, the amount of damage done to the integrity of the office would be weighed.
So, IMO, a serious enough offense would warrant impeachment. Just because no impeachment has occurred to this point doesn't mean it isn't a remedy available in the future. (Please note, it doesn't appear there's any evidence at all against VP Cheney. I'm speaking about hypotheticals.)
I would vote for the former. That said, I wouldn't allow that to preclude me voicing opposition to the 20%.
Myself, I stick with someone of character whom I didn't agree with on all issues, rather than going with someone who mouths platitudes I agree with but has no character.
Ideally, the person has character AND agrees on all the issues. I'm not sure that person exists. ;-)
Continuing my thought, nor would I consider others who mention that 20% to be disloyal. But, to each their own.
What I see are some people who abandon ship when their pet cause isn't handled the way they wish. That is their privilege, but they are one-issue voters and because of that lose clout with the party.
I look at the sum total of what is being done. Perhaps economic policy isn't as conservative as I would like, but on the other hand military policy is better than I expected. In balance, I have to sick with the guy who is honest about his opinions, even when I don't share all of them, as opposed to someone who is chasing the polls in an obvious grasp for power.
There are two schools of thoughts on this, but I think I have made my position obvious.
Well, since that's not the case, let's go back to the original subject of someone on this thread deliberately posting the link to this poll in order to maliciously sway the results.
No, your original point is moot. You had stated before that a public official could not be impeached for actions taken prior to their current public office, when they clearly can.
I never stated that this happened a lot, simply that it could.
I hope that in the future, these people will be just as understanding when Klayman files another lawsuit or castigates a democrat politician.
I never stated that; you are twisting my words. The simple fact of the matter is that I offered to give you the e-mail address of the webmaster, so that any potential problems with the website, if there are any at all, could be corrected. If you were really interested in change, rather than another lazy complaint against Judicial Watch, you would have agreed to e-mail the webmaster of that site and ask them to correct the problem, if there was really one.
Your refusal to fix the situation is perhaps a dereliction of your own duty.
The link to the poll posted on this thread was an obvious attempt to Freep the poll.
I never smeared Coulter, I was replying to another person on this thread accusing Coulter of being paid by Klayman to appear on his radio show. I like Ann Coulter, and I do not like it when people here accuse her of being an instrument of bribery.
What's more, I also did not like the fact that this same poster accused her of playing "kissy face" with Klayman. Coulter appears on JW's radio show often and seems to have a genuine respect for the organization. The fact that some people on this thread cannot take this simple fact is amazing, and so is it amazing and sad that these very same people will go great lengths to smear her reputation just because they hate JW.
Do me a favor and read my posts before you accuse me of slander.
Try anyone who is interested in their lawsuits will go to the website, not just diehard JW supporters.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.