Halliburton Responds to Larry Klayman's Supersillyous Suit(My Title)

CBS Market Watch "Big Charts" Web Site ^ | 7/10/2002 | MarketWatch.com

[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."

[Miss Marple]

You raise an interesting question. Should one stick with a leader who agrees with one on 80% of the principles, or should one jump ship if one doesn't get 100% of what one wants?

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.

[NittanyLion]

In fact, during times when impeachment WAS considered for previsou so-called "crimes," they committees decided they could NOT use those as evidence for impeachment, as I already referenced concerning Richard Nixon.

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.)

[Wait4Truth]

Boy, you sure are good at fileting people...love ya! LOL!

[NittanyLion]

You raise an interesting question. Should one stick with a leader who agrees with one on 80% of the principles, or should one jump ship if one doesn't get 100% of what one wants?

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. ;-)

[NittanyLion]

MM: You raise an interesting question. Should one stick with a leader who agrees with one on 80% of the principles, or should one jump ship if one doesn't get 100% of what one wants?
I would vote for the former. That said, I wouldn't allow that to preclude me voicing opposition to the 20%.

Continuing my thought, nor would I consider others who mention that 20% to be disloyal. But, to each their own.

[Miss Marple]

No, I don't consider those who disagree disloyal. I myself don't agree with the President on all things, amazing though it may seem to my detractors.

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.

[NittanyLion]

I think you've hit on an important issue: context. When Clinton was in office we had it easy here - everyone was against everything he did all the time. That situation no longer exists, and human nature dictates that the most-noticed comments will be those that fit our preconceptions. If Poster A considers Poster B to be a "Bush-loyalist" posts to support A's theory will be noted; others will be disregarded. Or vice versa.

[RedBloodedAmerican]

[RedBloodedAmerican]

[TLBSHOW]

Sorry I missed you reply earlier. Thanks and Good work!

[FreedominJesusChrist]

"And would you admit that it was a malicious attempt to sway the results if ONLY people who go to the JW web site got to vote?"</i?

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.

[FreedominJesusChrist]

"There is just as much chance that they will NOT be impeached for actions that occur before they took office, so your point is moot."

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.

[FreedominJesusChrist]

You have no idea what you are talking about.

[FreedominJesusChrist]

If anything your post from DU illustrates a simple truth: That people are all too willing to write off political scandals within their own party, because their partisan bias gets in the way of what is best for the country.

I hope that in the future, these people will be just as understanding when Klayman files another lawsuit or castigates a democrat politician.

[FreedominJesusChrist]

"Complain? I am outraged that you believe that Klayman's supporters votes should count for more than those who disagree with him."

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.

[TLBSHOW]

Not sure what you are talking about??? Another day of it!

[FreedominJesusChrist]

" Implying that we had FReeped the poll."

The link to the poll posted on this thread was an obvious attempt to Freep the poll.

[FreedominJesusChrist]

"which post did she smear Ann Coulter in?"

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.

[terilyn]

As it was reported that there was also a link posted to DU, I'd say that any voting done by people here was offset by people at DU.

[FreedominJesusChrist]

"Of course, you realize, do you not, that by NOT linking this poll to FR only DIEHARD JW supporters would go there, so that poll wouldn't have had ANY truth to it at all? If you don't publicize your poll, you are FIXING it and it's a lie."

Try anyone who is interested in their lawsuits will go to the website, not just diehard JW supporters.