Honest question and I'd appreciate an answer without the attitude. If you pledge something to charity, can you never "unpledge" it?
What would show up are the deferred compensation payments, but to be honest I think that's an empty argument. If this is all there is to the present relationship...and I say that's a bif " if' given their past record together and the suspicious menas by which Haliburton has gotten prefered status for government contracts since Chenet went to work...but if this is all there is to it, it's a dead end, IMO. But T_J still skewed the argument when, on an original point, he was in error. And I've still never gotten a response from him on armed services pay as determied by the free market...while lacking an essential element of the free market; field competition. Oh well.
Your inability to read continues to amaze. I agreed (three times already) that pledging them to charity does extinguish the financial tie in my book. We were discussing whether, in the absense of that pledge, they had significant value, or presented a conflict. It must be difficult to continually look down on others from you perch in the gutter. I'm gone.
BNB, I did not come to Cheney's defense. I was merely talking about whether Halliburton's stock is a wise investment. I actually find it dubious that Halliburton got a large contract to rebuild Iraq, just after Cheney was a major player there. DD
More of the same... _____________________ Let me introduce you to New Bridge Strategies, LLC. New Bridge is 'Helping to Rebuild a New Iraq' as their liner note says. Here's the company's new blurb from their website ... "New Bridge Strategies, LLC is a unique company that was created specifically with the aim of assisting clients to evaluate and take advantage of business opportunities in the Middle East following the conclusion of the U.S.-led war in Iraq. Its activities will seek to expedite the creation of free and fair markets and new economic growth in Iraq, consistent with the policies of the Bush Administration. The opportunities evolving in Iraq today are of such an unprecedented nature and scope that no other existing firm has the necessary skills and experience to be effective both in Washington, D.C. and on the ground in Iraq." A 'unique company'? You could say that. Who's the Chairman and Director of New Bridge? That would be Joe M. Allbaugh, President Bush's longtime right-hand-man and until about six months ago his head of FEMA. Before that of course he was the president's chief of staff when he was governor of Texas and campaign manager for Bush-Cheney 2000. Allbaugh was part of the president's so-called 'Iron Triangle' -- the other two being Karl Rove and Karen Hughes. And now Allbaugh's running an outfit that helps your company get the sweetest contracts in Iraq? That sound right to you? Think he'll have any special pull? Visit the site to see their "interactive map of Iraq [which] will show areas of opportunity in the post-war rebuilding effort for specific industries." It's James Fisk and Jay Gould of Arabia. Unbelievable ... -- Josh Marshall
1) The potential value of the stock options question has been answered by the pledge of future profits to charity, the illiquidity of the options, and the finite time period of the options Point: Trader_Jorge 2) The financial ties question has been answered and debunked by the demonstated independence of Halliburton's performance and Cheney's financial gains in his stock options. The question has been further answered and debunked by the demonstrated independence of Halliburton's performance and Cheney's financial gains in his deferred compensation. Point: Trader_Jorge 3) The conflict of interest question has been answered and debunked by the independence of Halliburton's performance and Cheney's financial gains. The question has been further answered and debunked by the demonstrated independence of Halliburton's performance and Cheney's financial gains in his deferred compensation. Point: Trader_Jorge Score: Trader_Jorge 3 MacBeth 0 GAME, SET, MATCH -- thanks for playing MacRookie
I'm back... DaDa: I reread your note. You're right...you didn't defend the stock options...i misread your post. Oops. As an aside, I don't have any problem with Halliburton getting the post Iraq work if they are qualified to do it (which I beleive they are). Cheney has to ensure his conflicts are appropriately addressed, but given Halliburton's done lots of government work before the Bush reign, I don't see why they should be forbidden from doing it now.
I suspect you can...but the income would be taxable too. And he doesn't get the cash. I expect there are plenty of skeletons and shady deals in Cheney's closet, but he's clean on this one.
Not sure how you would treat this from an accounting perspective, since the intrinsic value of what was pledged to charity is zero. Not sure what this matters, since it has no relevance to the financial ties question -- the options have already been pledged. What is Cheney's tie? This is none.
Lol! Clearly you are dellusional. 1) I never contended with the charity argument, silly boy, but was in fact the first to say that, if accurate, it invalidates this argument against Cheney. Try reading...or not, whatever. Only you, T_J, would give yourself a point against someone when they didn't engage in this aspect of the game.l -1 T_J point for merit, -2 T_J points for idiocy. As previous, MacBeth isn't playing this round. Score: T_J -3, Macbeth 0 2) The incentive to improve a companiy's position when you own stock is amplified when that stock is currently worthless. I can't see how you deny this. Again, the only thing which invalidates this is the charity angle, which i conceded a while back. But...as I said in my initial post, the one where I conceded the charity angle, you are still wrong about htis on point. The conflict of interest exists when the VP's future stock worth is connected to the stock value of the company in question. To be fair, however, this wasn't my point originally, it was someone else's. I just merely pointed out that you sidestepped it. -1 T_J point for merit, -7 for continued idiocy ( it compounds).MacBeth's point was scored bv another, so the score is T_J -11, MacBeth 0 3) I said the deferred compensation was an empty argument. Read...again. Now go back and see if you can read it this time while understanding the words. 1st step: read posts. 2nd step: understand posts. 3rd step: respond to posts. If you start following this handy dandy method of posting, while your entertainment value will go down for the rest of us, you might actually make the occasional valid point. In the meanwhile, however... - 2 points for merit ( repetitive error) and - 49 points ( compounded) for idiocy. MacBeth,as he again wasn't playing this point, scores zero. Final Score: T_J minus 62, MacBeth 0. Again, T_J beats himself, and MacBeth is just there to watch. If he starts EXPOSING himself before he beats, MacBeth will refuse to watch, as it's vaguely porPographic ( or pornographic if you prefer, thanks Bob), and just plain creepy.
An enjoyable post, MacB, but I can't avoid commenting on the new YoYao-ism, "porpographic"! WARNING: you are viewing child porpography.
Lol! Actually, no joke, even with the misspelling and intended hillarity, i'll bet you and I just went on a list somewhere due to that last warning. Big Brother is not noted for his sense of humour.
Very good point. If the pledge is not irrevocable, it is FALSE to say the stock options have zero time value for him and then Cheney LIED when he said he has no financial ties to Halliburton - since he would always have the option to have options which might have an intrinsic value in the future and which do have a time value right now. The option to revoke his pledge and end up benefiting from the options himself does have a value in itself (if it exists) which is tied to the performance of Halliburton in the future. I absolutely do NOT see how one could defend Cheney without having known that he pledged the potential proceeds from exercising the options to charity. Without that component, he lied. And if the pledge is revocable, he also lied. If the pledge to charity is irrevocable, he might not have lied, but it seems like he did not explain the situation very clearly.
But T_J, this still doesn't affect the score ( TJ minus 62, MB 0) so don't worry. I didn't think of this one either...unless you wanna play me on this round without my participation too, in which case it'll be something like TJ minus 1, 234, MB 0...and MB and B-Bob still popping up on alert lists... Thank God I don't teach children...
True. Well, if my bosses fire me for that photo, I think it will make for an amusing newspaper article.
So other than MacRookie and Sizzle Chest's cute little pictures, the argument that the liberals are reduced to is based on revoking a pledge to charity? This is very very weak. DESPERATION Conquistador_Jorge strikes again! Successfully defeating the sinister liberals and their attempts to propagate false information!
B-Bob...he calls you Sizzle Chest? Ha. He calls me MacRookie. I would be more comfortable with being given pet names were he not someone so obsessed with EXPOSING himself in public, but you can't win 'em all.
