I'm watching the debate and thinking that John Edwards and Cheney should be running for president and Kerry and bush be thier running mates..

I hate admitting this, but I think ol' Cheney's kickin' serious butt in this debate. He's hitting poor Edwards with zinger after zinger and looking as trustworthy as grandpa doing it. He's definitely the brains on the GOP ticket.

I hate admitting this, but I think ol' Cheney's kickin' serious butt in this debate. He's hitting poor Edwards with zinger after zinger and looking as trustworthy as grandpa doing it. He's definitely the brains on the GOP ticket.

LOL, I'm just waiting for him to drop the F bomb again, don't think I'll get to see him do it though.

No way will he make that mistake again. Did you hear that Senator Leahy (the one that Cheney directed the infamous expletive at) is seated in the front row at the debate?

Here's a link to a New Yorker article that describes the exchange between the Veep and Leahy on the Senate floor. It'll make you laugh out loud with the clever euphemisms they use to allude to the words between the two.
http://www.newyorker.com/shouts/content/?040726sh_shouts

hehe...I'm going back to watching the debate..

Now that it's over, I'm calling Cheney the winner. Not that I thought Edwards came across anywhere near as incompetent as Bush, though.

Geeez... Mrs. Edwards really needs to try Weight Watchers... she's a cow.

edited to fix my "imcompetent" spelling. :)

It just ended and I have to agree that Cheney took the debate win. I am not a fan of Cheney at all but he handled Edwards on nearly all accounts and I too think that they could be better candidates for the presidency. They looked like father and son sitting there in near identical outfits, it was kinda wierd. Edwards stumbled and couldn't find his place on more than one occasion many times like we saw from the Presidential debates from Bush. They both are very bright men but Cheney seems to be the more cerebral of the two. I still don't necessarily like either of them too much but I have to say that I do like them both more than before.

i was impressed with Cheney as well, i believe he won that debate...he was very calm and composed throughout all of Edward's attacks...i don't think Cheney really answered the majority of Edward's attacks, however, i think Cheney alluded and completely went around many of them...for instance, Haliiburton and the reasoning as to why the military was outsourced when we had Bin Laden cornered...

Headlines: Cheney Mops Floor With Edwards...


Edwards Promises to Sue


:D


BTW I am no fan of the Democrats and especially not the John Johns, but Edward's wife is that way because of a medical condition I believe it was due to some complications with one of her children, so cut her some slack.

Tora Bora was never a confirmed cornering position for Bin Laden, that's why he didn't answer that one. Cheney doesn't say much about Halliburton because he knows it would only serve the other party for him to get into it. Cheney has a set limit of what he can make from Halliburton so it is really moot to bring it up, as it is to bring up Edwards being a trial lawyer.

The man with a Plan vs. Dr. Strangelove. The guy who makes promises that can't be kept vs the guy who lies and distorts on record. But it was fun to watch. Oh, Mr. Cheney, would you please come back to those Haliburton issues. I didn't quite catch your answer to the Haliburton-Enron analogy...

Cheney has a set limit of what he can make from Halliburton so it is really moot to bring it up, as it is to bring up Edwards being a trial lawyer.

You really don't understand how the good ol' boy network in the oil patch works, do you? Cheney's gonna do all right for himself when he goes back to the private sector.

I hate admitting this, but I think ol' Cheney's kickin' serious butt in this debate. He's hitting poor Edwards with zinger after zinger and looking as trustworthy as grandpa doing it. He's definitely the brains on the GOP ticket.


That was definately Cheney's format.

I find it disturbing that he can convey his message better than the actual President. Infact he really never even made mention of the president.

I think Edwards held his own and it was fun to see Dick dodge both the gay marraige issue and Halliburton.

Overall, it seemed like a draw with each winning a round or two. Everytime you started to think one got their stride, they seemed to lose it again.


Town hall should be fun.

Bernie, being from the South I do know how things work, maybe you just live on a different planet then the rest of us.

Bernie, being from the South I do know how things work, maybe you just live on a different planet then the rest of us.

Don't know about that. You're the one that suggests Cheney has nothing to gain by pandering to the oil patch. Cheney's relationship with Halliburton, past and future, is very NOT moot, considering the way Halliburton has benefited from our Iraqi adventure, and considering the legal issues Halliburton is currently facing for shady practices. Don't the bidless contracts bother you in the least?

While Elmer Befuddled probably was motivated by the Texas cowboy in him, Dr. Strangelove engineered our Iraqi policy for the oldest of reasons, greed. That message is slowly penetrating on the voting populace and is one of the reasons why these guys are going to be outta here in January.

Don't know about that. You're the one that suggests Cheney has nothing to gain by pandering to the oil patch. Cheney's relationship with Halliburton, past and future, is very NOT moot, considering the way Halliburton has benefited from our Iraqi adventure, and considering the legal issues Halliburton is currently facing for shady practices. Don't the bidless contracts bother you in the least?Wow, where to start?

- Factcheck: http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=261 Cheney as VP has not earned a dime from Halliburton. What he's gotten from Halliburton was what was due him as CEO. What Cheney has received from Halliburton is nothing out of the ordinary for a CEO of a large company, and more importantly, were part of a preexisting situation/package before he came into the white house.

- No bid contracts with Hallibuton are not a new thing, Clinton did the same during his Presidency*.

- The reason there were no bid contracts was due to the fact we were going into war and needed action now, not months down the road. The government's bidding process is very involved and takes a lot of time. Halliburton was already ready to go, and had the infrastructure in place to do the job.


*Halliburton first won the competitive bid for LOGCAP in 1992. It lost the contract in 1997 when Clinton was in office. But Clinton then needed help with his logistics effort in Bosnia, so he turned around and gave Halliburton a no bid contract. In 2001 Halliburton won a competitive bidding contract.

To sum things up: Halliburton won two competitive bid contracts in 1992 and 2001 under Republicans. In 1997 Halliburton was given contracts without bidding under Clinton.

This is nothing but smoke and mirrors. Cheney was right to not dig into it, as it only gives the Democrats ammo. Anyone who researches the subject will see Hallibuton as a non-issue, though the Democrats have done a good job at obfuscating things.

bernieunger, if you're going to invoke the name of Halliburton, please back up your statements with something other than opinion.

^^^ Heheheh... you heard Cheney name-drop the Factcheck.org website too. I was online (obviously) as the debate was on and I typed that in moments after he mentioned it. Couldn't get through, though.

Sorry, but if Cheney makes a point of telling people to go to a particular webpage to back up his assertions, I'd prefer to see the alleged "facts" corroborated elsewhere as well.

Aratinga, factcheck.org has been pointed to numerous times by the democrats on this forum - do a search :) It's non-partisan as you can see by browsing the site.

btw, I think Cheney said "factcheck.com", which is not good (sends you to soros' site)

While Elmer Befuddled probably was motivated by the Texas cowboy in him, Dr. Strangelove engineered our Iraqi policy for the oldest of reasons, greed.

LOL so guess the French, Germans, Russians and Chinese only opposed the Iraqi policy out of the goodness of their liwtle hearts, god bless them all, and all along silly me I thought it might have somehting to do with all the arms they were selling to Iraq and the multimillion dollar annual business.

Not to mention ol Kofi at the UN, again I thought they didn't want their good ol boy Sadam out of power because of the billions in oil for food money his son and others at the UN were skimming of the top, but again I was wrong, they just wanted to opose those wascally Americans and their greed.. yup that's the ticket...

He actually stated factcheck.com instead of .org! I bet the Dems will try to use this as ammo. :rolleyes:

Where are all the Dems of the forum hiding tonight?

All I have to say is:

http://blog.johnkerry.com/blog/archives/Cheney-Edwards.jpg

Cheney stated that he had never seen Edwards on the Senate floor and Edwards didn't look pleased, nor did he answer those statements, much like Cheney and Halliburton. Both men had to state the inaccuracies of the presidential candidates too so as not to show dissention, most notable was the $200billion figure that Kerry and Edwards have to lie about now. They know they can't afford any more flip-flop accusations so they are stuck repeating an $80 billion inaccuracy.

Cheney stated that he had never seen Edwards on the Senate floor and Edwards didn't look pleased, nor did he answer those statements, much like Cheney and Halliburton. Both men had to state the inaccuracies of the presidential candidates too so as not to show dissention, most notable was the $200billion figure that Kerry and Edwards have to lie about now. They know they can't afford any more flip-flop accusations so they are stuck repeating an $80 billion inaccuracy.


No, Cheney claimed that Edwards was never there, infact so much that tonight was the first time they had even met...

A blatent lie.


Cheney is smooth cause he has a poker face even when he lies through his teeth.

No, Cheney claimed that Edwards was never there, infact so much that tonight was the first time they had even met... Care to share with the class Edward's attendance record? I know I wouldn't have a job if I skipped out even one or two days.

Cheney is smooth cause he has a poker face even when he lies through his teeth.Are you talking about the Trial Lawyer, or the Vice President that has the highest credentials and most in depth background this country has ever had? Stop talking about his teeth and talk more about Halliburton. Cheney didn't have time to get into it, but I do.

Actually I have to hit the sack.... but I'll be back tomorrow.

Isn't it ironic that when they finally make a stand and stick with a statement, that the statement is inaccurate?

I'm just waiting to see if someone disputes my Halliburton post above, or if it'll just be ignored :)


Let's see... when Dick Cheney was head of Halliburton they did deals with Iran, and Halliburton also has a tax shelter in the Cayman islands. Halliburton is the largest contractor in Iraq... on a no-bid contract, where they're being investigated for over-charging for fuel.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3908753.stm

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aKSj9btaxBGM&refer=news_index



Cheney won't disclose the people involved in his energy task force, which developed the nations energy policy:

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N15460668.htm

http://www.judicialwatch.org/071703.b_PR.shtml



Seems to be a conflict of interest if nothing else and it's at least more substantive than many other issues on the table. Still pretty boring though. I'd much rather talk about their record the last 4 years.


He's very good at ducking and weaving through questions though.

Care to share with the class Edward's attendance record? I know I wouldn't have a job if I skipped out even one or two days.



Hi, remember Bush's attendance record?:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A15546-2003Aug2?language=printer

Far more disturbing.


P.S. Cheney still lied.

>>bernieunger, if you're going to invoke the name of Halliburton, please back up your statements with something other than opinion.<<

No, you prove what i said is wrong. So, exactly why was Halliburton, and not other companies, ready to rock and roll?

>>Cheney as VP has not earned a dime from Halliburton. What he's gotten from Halliburton was what was due him as CEO.<<

And how do you suppose he got that job? You think he came up through the ranks at Halliburton? Cheney got that job because of his Washington connections, or are you so naive to assume that he got it for his proven managerial experience? When he leaves office in January he'll be well taken care of. Sorry, my literal minded Pollyanic friend, that proof isn't on the web yet. Give me till about June.

I just thought I’d bring this up before the moment escapes. Here’s a year old link to NewsMax.com (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2003/9/15/94839.shtml) (egads!!!) where Cheney is still beating the drums regarding an Iraq 9/11 link.

And here’s a quote (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/05/debate.main/index.html) from tonight’s debate. "The senator has got his facts wrong," Cheney said. "I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11, but there's clearly an established Iraqi track record with terror."

Liar, liar, pants on fire.

I gotta say I think it was a tie. Edwards looked a bit flustered when asked about his experience, Cheney was a bit flustered with the Halliburton references, but niether to the point where they couldn't talk. Cheney did a few "don't know where to start" lines, but didn't repeat "it's hard work". The gay marriage issue was handled gracefully by both sides. It's obviously a point where Cheney's views are different than his party's (I can appreciate that). Cheney appeared a bit mean sometimes (bernie, I like the Dr. Strangelove thing), and Edwards went on with his cute little stories when I wish he would've dealt with some issues. All in all, Edwards held his own, and Cheney was what we expect. I think Edwards could do better - I think the format confused him more than anything else. Gwen is definitely second cookie to Jim Leher, but I guess this was a "second cookie" event.

No, you prove what i said is wrong.Is this where our political debates are going? I was hoping for a little more from you after all the big talk about America going to war with Iraq to make money for Cheney. If you say something, you are obligated to back that statement up with facts. Otherwise anyone can fill up a page with blatantly false statements.

And how do you suppose he got that job? You think he came up through the ranks at Halliburton? Cheney got that job because of his Washington connections, or are you so naive to assume that he got it for his proven managerial experience?Again you change the subject. You have managed to write a lot of jibberish and attempted to sidestep the question without answering it. Additionally, are you now charging that something illegal occurred when Cheney became CEO of Halliburton? Talk about a conspiracy theory.

Back to your words:

Mr. Cheney, would you please come back to those Haliburton issues
You're the one that suggests Cheney has nothing to gain by pandering to the oil patch. Cheney's relationship with Halliburton, past and future, is very NOT moot
I'm willing to hear your evidence that Cheney's past role as CEO of Halliburton is in any way shape or form related to him as VP, or that the United States has gone to war in Iraq because of Cheney to benefit Halliburton. This is a particularly big issue because Kerry has ads on TV that charge this, and I've seen it repeated on the forums several times before. I have to admit that I thought the Halliburton ties looked suspicious, and would have prefered that Cheney be replaced with someone less contraversal. However a little research has gone a long way to changing that.

Care to share with the class Edward's attendance record? I know I wouldn't have a job if I skipped out even one or two days.

Hi, remember Bush's attendance record?:

Far more disturbing.So I guess that means you're not going to post Edward's attendance record ;)

I just thought I’d bring this up before the moment escapes. Here’s a year old link to NewsMax.com (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2003/9/15/94839.shtml) (egads!!!) where Cheney is still beating the drums regarding an Iraq 9/11 link.

And here’s a quote (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/05/debate.main/index.html) from tonight’s debate. "The senator has got his facts wrong," Cheney said. "I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11, but there's clearly an established Iraqi track record with terror."

Liar, liar, pants on fire.

Ok read the whole article and here is the bottom line he didn't say there was a connection, read the man's own words in the article:


RUSSERT: But is there a connection?

CHENEY: We don't know. You and I talked about this two years ago. I can remember you asking me this question just a few days after the original attack. At the time I said no, we didn't have any evidence of that. Subsequent to that, we've learned a couple of things. We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW, that al-Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaeda organization.

We know, for example, in connection with the original World Trade Center bombing in '93, that one of the bombers was Iraqi, returned to Iraq after the attack of '93. And we've learned subsequent to that, since we went into Baghdad and got into the intelligence files, that this individual probably also received financing from the Iraqi government as well as safe haven.

Now, is there a connection between the Iraqi government and the original World Trade Center bombing in '93? We know, as I say, that one of the perpetrators of that act did, in fact, receive support from the Iraqi government after the fact. With respect to 9/11, of course, we've had the story that's been public out there. The Czechs alleged that Mohamed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack, but we've never been able to develop any more of that yet either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don't know. [End of Excerpt]



Leaving this aside, Kerry aluded to it in the first debate and so did Edwards in this one, they are trying to spin something out of the situation in the Sudan, somehow to make that Bush's fault (just like everything else) so explain this to me:

According to the John Johns we should be rushing into the Suddan to help on humanitarian grounds, fails all their other tests (or is that global tests) Sudan is no imminent threat, no WMD, no Al-Quada (well maybe who knows).

However on the other hand even if there are no WMD in Iraq it was wrong to help the 25 million Iraqis on humanitarian grounds alone?

Not to mention they keep dragging North Korea and Iran into the picture, it was their beloved Bubba who created the North Korean problem with his stupid agreement that Kim JOng Il just laughed at and went on developing his weapons in secret.

That is ample proof that the Iraq policy was the right policy because dictators like Saddam and Kim Jong Il only respect force.

Oh BTW Mt. St. Helen's is Bush's fault too, it never errupted when Clinton was in office, so it must be Bush's fault. Oh and all the hurricanes this year too.

good debate got nasty at times, and was agreeable at times, i give cheney the slight edge.

one thing i didnt like was how both candidates skirted issues that were very personal however important.

one other peeve i had was a comment that cheney made, that bush has experience as commander in chief and kerry/edwards do not. i mean no shit, most new presidents have not been president before, kinda low blow...although low blows were flying both ways, like when edwards brought up cheney's daughter.

(btw halliburton works like this, Cheney was due his stock options, which happenned to be well out of the money (which means he'd make nothing) until halliburton got a big contract...lo and behold the stock options are in the money alll of a sudden, amidst a scandal of how much halliburton was charging the US Govt for fuel)

one other peeve i had was a comment that cheney made, that bush has experience as commander in chief and kerry/edwards do not. i mean no shit, most new presidents have not been president before, kinda low blowIt's not a low blow, it's one of the big factors in the election - we have a president that we know how he will perform, and one that we don't.

(btw halliburton works like this, Cheney was due his stock options, which happenned to be well out of the money (which means he'd make nothing) until halliburton got a big contract...lo and behold the stock options are in the money alll of a suddenThey are called "unexercised stock options" for a reason. Cheney doesn't make any money off them until he sells them. He hasn't sold any yet.

Ok read the whole article and here is the bottom line he didn't say there was a connection, read the man's own words in the article:

A CYA disclaimer at the end. After connecting all these dots about Atta, shadowing meetings, and what not, most of which have been debunked, that CYA doesn't fly. The clear intent was a connection and Cheney was beating that drum long after the rest of administration decided it was dumb to do so.

Note to Jason, if it was overt, even our Newt-onian congress would be obliged to impeach Cheney. Why don't you write a little note, as a loyal Republican, asking Cheney to voluntarily release the minutes of all the energy policy planning meetings he had with his industry cronies. It would help clear the air and erase suspicion since he "clearly" didn't do anything wrong. Hmmm, silly idea. Executive Privilege, a political Supreme Court and all that. Jeesh, Jason, when trying to figure out what these guys have been planning, you have to go by what was done, what the results were. You can't argue that Halliburten wasn't the prime benificiary of what happened in Iraq. This is a smell test issue, Jason. Use the same nose you used when Clinton was president.

They are called "unexercised stock options" for a reason. Cheney doesn't make any money off them until he sells them. He hasn't sold any yet.

Your dumbest statement yet. Please check Halliburten's stock price since the Iraq war started. If it's true that Cheney still had options that would be a clear cut conflict of interest. I think even Cheney would realize that would be over-the-top blatant. Cheney probably has the standard blind-trust arrangement of other executive policy makers, and no remaining options. Does anybody have links for this?

i dont have supporting info, but im pretty sure cheney isnt allowed to exercise his options while in office...however when he is out of office...those elevated halliburton numbers look good...(also im not sure on the time to maturity on those options)...someone really ought to look into this.

look if i was in his position i would of done the same exact thing, people are inherently greedy, denying that is just incorrect. if i knew i could make 10s of millions of dollars by building a no bid contract that looked like a contract up for bidding (other international companies could have bid, but france and germany weren't allowed, guess where haliburtons competition was), i would totally have done it if i had the power.

Your dumbest statement yet. Please check Halliburten's stock price since the Iraq war started. If it's true that Cheney still had options that would be a clear cut conflict of interest. I think even Cheney would realize that would be over-the-top blatant. Cheney probably has the standard blind-trust arrangement of other executive policy makers, and no remaining options. Does anybody have links for this?Is it dumb, or are you tossing out random things and hoping something sticks?

1) If Cheney sold his stock options before the conflict plans were announced, you would claim that would be evidence of planning beforehand.

2) If Cheney sold his stock options when the plans were announced, you would use that as evidence that he's profiting on the war in Iraq.

So Cheney didn't do anything with them. You have no idea if and when he will ever do something with them.

Cheney has insurance on his Halliburton options. Even if Halliburton goes bankrupt, he still gets paid.

dont have supporting info, but im pretty sure cheney isnt allowed to exercise his options while in office...however when he is out of office...those elevated halliburton numbers look goodStocks go up and down. Even without the war in Iraq, oil prices would have climbed. Halliburton is in the oil business and would have still gone up.

I don't want to start calling you guys names, but I'm not happy you seem to overlook the obvious.

Here is Halliburton's 2 year graph of their stocks: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=HAL&t=2y

Here is one of Halliburton's competitors stocks (Schlumberger): http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=SLB&t=2y

Open them both up and tell me what you think. Oil is big right now, Halliburton in Iraq or not.

Here's a composite with Halliburton and Schlumberger together:

One year: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=HAL&t=1y&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=SLB

Since the 80's: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=HAL&t=my&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=SLB

correct me if im wrong but didnt schlumberger not get a chance to bid on the contracts in iraq?

edit:btw rise in oil prices is directly attributed to the emerging economy in china, oil demand in china is skyrocekting...jasons right oil would of gotten to 50 war or no war

Your dumbest statement yet. Please check Halliburten's stock price since the Iraq war started. If it's true that Cheney still had options that would be a clear cut conflict of interest. I think even Cheney would realize that would be over-the-top blatant. Cheney probably has the standard blind-trust arrangement of other executive policy makers, and no remaining options. Does anybody have links for this?
You could have left that out. Read this. (http://www.rx8club.com/faq.php?faq=forum_rules#faq_user_conduct)

2. Personal attacks against other forum members will not be tolerated, nor will any type of "trolling" for a fight.

4. Be respectful. This is harder to define, but will be moderated. If a moderator believes you are being purposefully disrespectful to a fellow member, you will be notified. Bashing for the sake of bashing will not be tolerated.

correct me if im wrong but didnt schlumberger not get a chance to bid on the contracts in iraq?

edit:btw rise in oil prices is directly attributed to the emerging economy in china, oil demand in china is skyrocekting...jasons right oil would of gotten to 50 war or no warHalliburton was picked because the previous year they had won a competitive bid for a contingency plan on fixing Iraq's oil production (They beat four other large US corporations invited). I can only assume since they had bids in place, when they suddenly needed aid, they knew what Halliburton's prices would be and what to expect.

According to contract rules, Halliburton can make a margin of up to 7 per cent on the work.

Everyone knew there would be scrutiny due to the VP's previous position at Halliburton. They made sure there would be as little issue as possible, but there isn't any reason for them to NOT use Halliburton if they are the best suited for the job.

well i think we're getting to an excellent point...can corporate leaders consistently make a jump to the political world (btw im a big believer in the future moving towards a corporate nation). Because i personally think the times are allowing corporate leaders to become politically active... are there conflicts of interests? does it even matter if there are?


donald trump in 2012?

lol

It seems like every time I reply in a thread, I essentially kill it. C'mon guys, I like these discussions - We can have a discussion without mudslinging!

Care to share with the class Edward's attendance record? I know I wouldn't have a job if I skipped out even one or two days.

Are you talking about the Trial Lawyer, or the Vice President that has the highest credentials and most in depth background this country has ever had? Stop talking about his teeth and talk more about Halliburton. Cheney didn't have time to get into it, but I do.

It's nice to hear somebody else say that regarding Cheney's credentials.

He is definitely the most highly qualified VP this country has had in at least the last 40 years.

Bush gets a lot of credit from me for picking a VP for his qualifications and ability to help govern rather than for purely political purposes and helping to win an election.

Halliburton is a smoke screen, just as Cheney said it was.

wow a lot of energy discussing a job where you go to funerals and..... what else does a VP do? Oh yeah. "Wake up Dick, there's a tie in the Senate"! ;)

wow a lot of energy discussing a job where you go to funerals and..... what else does a VP do? Oh yeah. "Wake up Dick, there's a tie in the Senate"! ;)You missed the most important role - becoming President if something happens.

So I guess that means you're not going to post Edward's attendance record ;)


I wasn't able to find a copy of it... have you?


Non-partisan sites only please.


Also, are you not going to address Cheney's blatent lie?

In addition to the previous photo of them together....

If you watch 32:50 into the January 7th, 2003 edition of "The News Hour with Jim Lehrer" (RealPlayer), you will see Dick Cheney opening the Senate for the year, prior to the swearing in of new Senators.

rtsp://audio.pbs.org/virage/newshour/pbsnh010703_220k.rm

http://www.violane.com/public_html/mark/cheneyedwards/edwardscheney.jpg


That's Cheney on the far left swearing in Liddy Dole, Edwards right behind her.


And it hasn't even been 24 hours since the debate. Cheney blatently lied through his snarl.


UPDATE: Tim Russert is going around saying that Edwards and Cheney met backstage on his show, and shook hands and exchanged pleasentries.

I wasn't able to find a copy of it... have you?

Non-partisan sites only please.Factcheck.org is really slow today, so here's a google cache of Kerry's attendance:

http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:ubYsPsl_NyoJ:www.factcheck.org/article.aspx%3FdocID%3D241+edwards+attendance+reco rd&hl=en

The reason I am posting about Kerry is if you read further down is because of this point:
The Kerry rebuttal also noted that most of the Intelligence Committee meetings are closed and attendance figures for closed meetings aren't public, which is true. But Kerry offered nothing to show that his attendance at closed meetings was better or worse than his attendance at open hearings. He also has passed up a chance to have the full record of his attendance made public.The closed meetings aren't public and Kerry hasn't released his attendance records. Edwards hasn't either.

The closest I could find on Edwards was this:Earlier, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) called on Kerry and his vice presidential running mate, Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.), "to publicly release their attendance records at the private, or classified hearing on the Intelligence Committee so the American people can really know the truth.




"Where does the failure of oversight come from? Is it because they didn't bother to show up?" Cornyn asked. "I think the American people deserve to know and they deserve to know the truth now."

Edwards, currently serves on the Intelligence Committee. There have been eight public hearings since he joined the panel and he has attended four, according to the Republican National Committee.

Nice discussion of stock options, but do we know how Cheney gets compensated? I was under the impression that as CEO, since he got ~$10M ins salary, for tax purposes he defers that, spreading it out over x years. I think he gets $1.6M /yr. Getting stock or stock options would obviously be a conflict of interest. There's always the promise of a job afterwards, or just helping his friends - maybe that's how he gets his ROI on the no-bid contracts.

Re: Cheney's credentials - if you look at the performance of Halliburton, it has not been very stellar. Not just stock price, but product liability (asbestos) and accounting. I wouldn't point to that as a good reason for him to be VP.

Hetz - I don't know if I'll need to redeem my get-out-of-jail-free card for this but: Bernie's' "Your dumbest statement yet" referred to Jason's statement, not to him personally. Not trying to argue, just saying... re: #45.

I see your edit :)Also, are you not going to address Cheney's blatent lie?

In addition to the previous photo of them together....

If you watch 32:50 into the January 7th, 2003 edition of "The News Hour with Jim Lehrer" (RealPlayer), you will see Dick Cheney opening the Senate for the year, prior to the swearing in of new Senators.I haven't looked up any of that info yet, but I can tell you that there have been things misrepresented by both men during the debate. Factcheck has an unflattering list on their front page for each. Not meeting Edwards may well depend on what Cheney considers an official meeting. Being in the same room, or shaking someone's hand without any conversation may not count, or he could have simply forgotten. Regardless, not meeting Edwards would rank among the bottom of the list of important issues in the election.

Hetz - I don't know if I'll need to redeem my get-out-of-jail-free card for this but: Feras' "Your dumbest statement yet" referred to Jason's statement, not to him personally. Not trying to argue, just saying... re: #45.I didn't mind his coment, but if you want to get technical, I made the statement, so calling it dumb is calling me dumb. Otherwise why would people consider Dan Quail dumb? ;) It's because of what he said.

Well, as my Monessori teacher told me, there are no bad people, just bad behaviour :p
Quayle on the other hand fits the Forest Gump rule ...

Hetz - I don't know if I'll need to redeem my get-out-of-jail-free card for this but: Feras' "Your dumbest statement yet" referred to Jason's statement, not to him personally. Not trying to argue, just saying... re: #45.

edit: you're quick :) just rearranged a bit. no words changed.


get your info straight bernieunger said that not me i dont need to be warned or banned or ripped on for stuff i didnt say

i respect what jason has had to say so far, and see this as a debate, i wouldnt call anything anyone has said here dumb or think of anyone as dumb

ooooooops. sorry. my bad. changing... :(
<looks around nervously to see if Hetz noticed>

ooooooops. sorry. my bad. changing... :(

thanks :D

Hetz - I don't know if I'll need to redeem my get-out-of-jail-free card for this but: Bernie's' "Your dumbest statement yet" referred to Jason's statement, not to him personally. Not trying to argue, just saying... re: #45.
He still insulted his intelligence. If someone told me my statement was dumb, I'd be mighty pissed :)

Oh, and you're not in jail. Your statements have been very good as of late :)

np. I was captivated by your #44. hmmm.

Oh, and you're not in jail. Your statements have been very good as of late :)

:D

After a few years on the internet, I've learned not to take criticism too personally. It's nice to have a place though where that crusty outer shell is not a requirement.

ooooooops. sorry. my bad. changing... :(
<looks around nervously to see if Hetz noticed>
Missed this one - Time to go back and look at your edit logs.

I see your edit :)I haven't looked up any of that info yet, but I can tell you that there have been things misrepresented by both men during the debate. Factcheck has an unflattering list on their front page for each. Not meeting Edwards may well depend on what Cheney considers an official meeting. Being in the same room, or shaking someone's hand without any conversation may not count, or he could have simply forgotten. Regardless, not meeting Edwards would rank among the bottom of the list of important issues in the election.


My edit was to add the updated Tim Russert information and properly link the URL to the video.

Factcheck does make the whole debate pretty moot. I will note however that whenever there is a sentator running for P/VP, the opposing party always try to bring up missed attendance... which is natural given that they're campaigning.



However, I think the photos speak for themselves.

It was a blatent lie on the part of Dick Cheney. You can spin it however you want, but it was a clearly not the truth and brings to light just how straightfaced and guiltless he feels about making complete falsehoods.

My edit was to add the updated Tim Russert information and properly link the URL to the video.

Factcheck does make the whole debate pretty moot. I will note however that whenever there is a sentator running for P/VP, the opposing party always try to bring up missed attendance... which is natural given that they're campaigning.



However, I think the photos speak for themselves.

It was a blatent lie on the part of Dick Cheney. You can spin it however you want, but it was a clearly not the truth and brings to light just how straightfaced and guiltless he feels about making complete falsehoods.
I feel I have to reply to this one. I mean, seriously - He's met him what... three times so far that I have noticed here out of how many years in the Senate? That still does not negate his missed Senate attendance. He could have totally forgotten, I don't know. You are correct in that he should not have made the statement during the debate that he never met him - He clearly exaggerated... it should have been more of a "In my whole time as VP, I have only met you three times." - That would have been more accurate and still as potent.

Missed this one - Time to go back and look at your edit logs.
Y'know when you just get back from a big lunch, and you're kinda sleepy, and it's been a whole hour since you typed anything? I made a mistake.

Y'know when you just get back from a big lunch, and you're kinda sleepy, and it's been a whole hour since you typed anything? I made a mistake.
It was a joke :) I guess I needed one of these: ;)

well i think we're getting to an excellent point...can corporate leaders consistently make a jump to the political world (btw im a big believer in the future moving towards a corporate nation). Because i personally think the times are allowing corporate leaders to become politically active... are there conflicts of interests? does it even matter if there are?


donald trump in 2012?

lol

yes, yes and no. Since we are so close to having that now, with the revolving door between the defense department and defense contractors, we are seeing first-hand some of the dangers involved. What if a defense contractor, oh say Halliburton for example, placed one of themselves, say the CEO for example, on the Presidential ticket, used the company's money to fund the election, and then, once in office, that person started a war in a foreign country, oh say Iraq for example, and then say he gave all the defense contracts to his company, and other companies that funded the campaign. Those companies could get really rich, and Americans die, and taxpayers would lose. That would be bad, if it were to happen. Not saying it did, just that it could. Just an example.

It's possible that we could have a situation arise where power is misused. Thank goodness it hasn't happened yet!

absolutely.

Here's a great article fact-checking the debate:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/debatereferee/debate_1005.html

yes, yes and no. Since we are so close to having that now, with the revolving door between the defense department and defense contractors, we are seeing first-hand some of the dangers involved. What if a defense contractor, oh say Halliburton for example, placed one of themselves, say the CEO for example, on the Presidential ticket, used the company's money to fund the election, and then, once in office, that person started a war in a foreign country, oh say Iraq for example, and then say he gave all the defense contracts to his company, and other companies that funded the campaign. Those companies could get really rich, and Americans die, and taxpayers would lose. That would be bad, if it were to happen. Not saying it did, just that it could. Just an example.

lol..

Anyone want to test their skill, and see if they can identify who this mystery man is claiming Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat facing America? Remember, we invaded Iraq in early 2003. This audio was taped in 2002.

http://homepage.mac.com/cfj/.Music/WireTap_recording001.mp3

re: my earlier assertions about Cheney's mismanagement at Halliburtion:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,,1319367,00.html

Eskimo, just for kicks I decided to play around.

What if a ketchup maker, oh say Heinz for example, placed one of themselves, say Mrs. Heinz Husband for example, on the Presidential ticket, used the company's money to fund the election, and then, once in office, that person caused a tomato famine across the world, except for their crops, and then say he gave all the ketchup producing contracts to his wife's company. That company could get really rich, and would be a monopoly, and taxpayers and ketchup purchasers would lose. That would be bad, if it were to happen. Not saying it did, just that it could. Just an example.

Eskimo, just for kicks I decided to play around.

What if a ketchup maker, oh say Heinz for example, placed one of themselves, say Mrs. Heinz Husband for example, on the Presidential ticket, used the company's money to fund the election, and then, once in office, that person caused a tomato famine across the world, except for their crops, and then say he gave all the ketchup producing contracts to his wife's company. That company could get really rich, and would be a monopoly, and taxpayers and ketchup purchasers would lose. That would be bad, if it were to happen. Not saying it did, just that it could. Just an example.

well take for instance Mrs. Heinz's first husband...also a politician and the king of ketchup

john heinz was a great pennsylvania senator and guess what he was a republican not a democrat (another reason why i dont fully comprehend the boycott of heinz that some conservatives are adhering to), and never oversubsidized tomato farmers.

Feras, it is a joke! J-O-K-E!!! Anyway, from what I have seen of the Heinz children they do not support their father-in-law either. I like Heinz ketchup BTW.

Feras, it is a joke! J-O-K-E!!! Anyway, from what I have seen of the Heinz children they do not support their father-in-law either. I like Heinz ketchup BTW.


i know i know, but the other day one of my ultraconservative friends said he's boycotting heinz ketchup, and i just flipped shit...first of all i think boycotts are stupid, and second of all 'hunts catsup' is trash. lol tastes like shit.

Boycotting is not stupid..Me and a bunch of people Boycotted EA Games for not making online options for the Xbox when it was making options for the PS2...And Well well well, would you look at that? Madden 2005 was online for Xbox!

Boycotts are a great way to tell <target> that what they're doing is rubbing their customers the wrong way. Without customers, your product/service is worthless.

What's wrong with a boycott?

(PS: Gas boycotts ARE stupid, they know you'll be buying more)

Eskimo, just for kicks I decided to play around.

What if a ketchup maker, oh say Heinz for example, placed one of themselves, say Mrs. Heinz Husband for example, on the Presidential ticket, used the company's money to fund the election, and then, once in office, that person caused a tomato famine across the world, except for their crops, and then say he gave all the ketchup producing contracts to his wife's company. That company could get really rich, and would be a monopoly, and taxpayers and ketchup purchasers would lose. That would be bad, if it were to happen. Not saying it did, just that it could. Just an example.


Yeah! Hey! And how bout if the Heinz guy actually died years ago, and the ketchup maker, Mrs. Heinz had like a miniscule percentage of the actual stock so this Mrs. Heinz wasn't associated with the actual ketchup makers, so she would like have not real motivation to do this, but she did it anyway, and like the President guy is like her second husband... but wait... does anybody die in this example? Just askin...

I just found out that Cheney has stock options but they are in a trust account. The trust says that when the options are sold, all after tax money is to be given to charities.

Cheney has no actual stock from Halliburton, only the aforementioned stock options.

So it does look like Cheney has cut his ties to Halliburton pretty well.

So Eskimo, you're saying that Kerry would not profit that much from it so it would be okay in my example? At least Cheney isn't riding in a Halliburton owned plane while going around the country and campaigning, unlike Mr. Heinz-Kerry who is using the Heinz plane to make his rounds. It seems my joke may not be so far fetched afterall.

So Eskimo, you're saying that Kerry would not profit that much from it so it would be okay in my example? At least Cheney isn't riding in a Halliburton owned plane while going around the country and campaigning, unlike Mr. Heinz-Kerry who is using the Heinz plane to make his rounds. It seems my joke may not be so far fetched afterall....not to mention Cheney actually performed a job and got paid for it, rather than just marrying into it as both Mrs. Heinz and Mr. Kerry* have done.


*Kerry's married into wealth twice so far.

No, this pair rides on planes provided by Enron. OK, that was last election. Listen, if you say Cheney has no more ties to Halliburton, excuse me if I laugh in your face. You can't tell me after working with these guys for what like 5 years he has no ties. And he sees the company name on the deferred compensation checks he gets. Regarding him actually performing a job, let me quote from my previous link:
Mr Cheney, it turns out, may have been of little real help to Halliburton at all: KBR filed for bankruptcy earlier this year, weighed down by asbestos litigation it inherited from an acquisition the vice-president made while he was still running the firm.

As far as marrying into wealth, "you go dude". Are you implying there's something wrong with that?

Listen, if you say Cheney has no more ties to Halliburton, excuse me if I laugh in your face.Prove it. Show me something that backs up your statements.

Regarding him actually performing a job, let me quote from my previous linkCNN had an unflattering article about Cheney, yet they said "Under Cheney's guidance, the company's stock price and profits have soared. In 1998, he made $2.2 million in salary and controlled another $10 million in Halliburton stock."

Additionally: "Cheney came under criticism due to Halliburton's parting gift to him of about $20 million. Cheney has pledged to forgo part of the gift if the GOP ticket wins." Yes, they're speaking about the stock options that he's put into a trust that will go 100% to charities, not his pocket. http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2000/democracy/bush/stories/cheney/

As far as marrying into wealth, "you go dude". Are you implying there's something wrong with that?As long as you don't mind being in the same boat as Anna Nichole Smith. That's American values at it's lowest.

Prove it. Show me something that backs up your statements.
I'm talking about personal contacts. I'm not a voyeur or paparazzi, so I'm not going to prove it but I'm still going to laugh.

CNN had an unflattering article about Cheney, yet they said "Under Cheney's guidance, the company's stock price and profits have soared. In 1998, he made $2.2 million in salary and controlled another $10 million in Halliburton stock."

Additionally: "Cheney came under criticism due to Halliburton's parting gift to him of about $20 million. Cheney has pledged to forgo part of the gift if the GOP ticket wins." Yes, they're speaking about the stock options that he's put into a trust that will go 100% to charities, not his pocket. http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2000/democracy/bush/stories/cheney/

Yes, and Pets.com's stock price soared too during the same period.

As long as you don't mind being in the same boat as Anna Nichole Smith. That's American values at it's lowest.
I'll take Teresa over that mummy Smith married any day, gender notwithstanding. I think that was the whole problem with her. I don't think it's fair to put them in the same boat. That's just mean. I mean the woman has money, can she never get married again? and Kerry's not going to marry some poor schoolteacher - look at his background.

Kerry's not going to marry some poor schoolteacher - look at his background.A school teacher can't support his lifestyle. But that only proves my point that he's marrying for wealth.

A school teacher can't support his lifestyle. But that only proves my point that he's marrying for wealth.
Seems like they are both using each other...he for her money, she for his (soon to be unrealized) potential. Their marriage seems as fake as his tan was last week. I wonder if they have consumated.

this comes to a good point, are we looking at anamerican competitive royalty...the price of leadership is being rich? both sides have long bank statements no matter how you look at it and clout in the corporate world.

you guys, with your sinister motives. C'mon. The two of them hang out in certain crowds, meet certain kinds of people, and are more likely to find love with those people. Jason it proves nothing. Damn, fake marriages? Are the rich and powerful not allowed to have real marriages? Are they not allowed to be happy? My guess is, looking at Teresa, she's a wild woman in the bedroom, and she would not be satisfied with a man who wasn't also.

looking at Teresa, she's a wild woman in the bedroom, and she would not be satisfied with a man who wasn't also.I'm picturing Johnny with a dog collar and Terry in a latex catsuit. Ahhh, omg, I just scared myself.

Oranje

folks, I'm really sorry for starting that meme so early in the morning. I need more coffee. I'm really trying to get that out of my head. <shiver>

this comes to a good point, are we looking at anamerican competitive royalty...the price of leadership is being rich? both sides have long bank statements no matter how you look at it and clout in the corporate world.I bet you anything that Bush has a far more modest lifestyle and bank account than Kerry :)

I bet you anything that Bush has a far more modest lifestyle and bank account than Kerry :)

of course, he doesnt have to live in new englandand compete with the social elite out there...nice big relaxing texas ranch lifestyle. i personally think we need a monaco style place in the US, or just offshore... thats the kind of lifestyle id like

of course, he doesnt have to live in new englandand compete with the social elite out there...nice big relaxing texas ranch lifestyle. i personally think we need a monaco style place in the US, or just offshore... thats the kind of lifestyle id likeI couldn't attach the image of the 7.8 million dollar house in Italy that he sold just before announcing he was running for president due to the 5 max images per post. It is unknown how many other homes he owns outside of the united states.

Real estate is a good investment, especially for a politician - no conflicts of interest.

Real estate is a good investment, especially for a politician - no conflicts of interest.Just because I'm pointing it out doesn't mean it's a bad thing. On the other hand, I have to laugh when Kerry tries to come across as the common man, and claims Bush is out of touch with today's world.

Just because I'm pointing it out doesn't mean it's a bad thing. On the other hand, I have to laugh when Kerry tries to come across as the common man, and claims Bush is out of touch with today's world.

Yeah, well...
This guy who somehow has managed to combine Yale intellectualism with the American cowboy myth and be completely inauthentic in both roles. That's what I see in Bush... He's an empty suit." – George Carlin

http://www.hbo.com/billmaher/episode/ (that was a good episode - lot's of good quotes)

no, it's not a bad thing that he has this stuff.

Just because I'm pointing it out doesn't mean it's a bad thing. On the other hand, I have to laugh when Kerry tries to come across as the common man, and claims Bush is out of touch with today's world.


i dont think we've ever had a common man president, and frankly i dont think we'd want one...we are an elitist soiety. period.

Lincoln was as common as it got. He was seen as a failure before he won the election, because he had never won or succeeded at anything in his life, and now he is regarded as one of the greatest Presidents in the history of the US.

Lincoln was as common as it got. He was seen as a failure before he won the election, because he had never won or succeeded at anything in his life, and now he is regarded as one of the greatest Presidents in the history of the US.


i thought lincoln was an accomplished lawyer???

Bush has been rich all his life, and therefore he looks out for the rich and big businesses. So therefore he is out of touch, and why presidents who cam from nothing like Lincoln are some of the most respectable we've had.

NOTE: I was gonna say Lincoln and Clinton but the whole affair thing took aay the respectable thing.

Bush I out of touch? Really? Lets see, Kerry, I voted for the bill before I voted against it. Flip flop belly flop. Not sure what is what with whose going to be the next P but the debates are getting interesting. Expect to see some action tommorow from these two.

I don't remember saying I like Kerry..Do I have to Like Kerry because I don't like Bush?

I don't remember saying I like Kerry..Do I have to Like Kerry because I don't like Bush?


whats worse is when i tell people i despise both and wont vote for neither, they assume i'll vote for nader...god some people dont understand what freedom to choose is. :)


Vote Libertarian

No and no but if you watch to see who will win it will be either of those two. Regardless who else is running. The best man never wins!

Lincoln was as common as it got. He was seen as a failure before he won the election, because he had never won or succeeded at anything in his life, and now he is regarded as one of the greatest Presidents in the history of the US.
At the time he wasn't. Lots of people hated the man - Hence the reason he was shot. I mean, I should know... I'm from Louisiana :)

I think we Should vote for Nader just to see what it would be like..

It's well established now that Bush has gone on record several times saying no draft. Yet the democrats continue to imply (or lie) that Bush wants the draft.

What is interesting about this, is that Kerry himself wants a draft. He had a page outlining his plans here: http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/natservice/

The page has been pulled (thus the 404) but the internet archive stored a copy:

http://web.archive.org/web/20040210043828/www.johnkerry.com/issues/natservice/

John Kerry believes that in these times, we need to bolster these efforts with a nationwide commitment to national service. Whether it is a Summer of Service for our teenagers, helping young people serve their country in return for college, or the Older Americans in Service program, John Kerry's plan will call on every American of every age and every background to serve. John Kerry will set a goal of one million Americans a year in national service within the next decade.
http://web.archive.org/web/20040205015409/www.johnkerry.com/issues/100days/education.html

As President, John Kerry will ensure that every high school student in America performs community service as a requirement for graduation. This service will be a rite of passage for our nation’s youth and will help foster a lifetime of service.

Thirteen to seventeen year olds are too old for child care and too young for many summer jobs. John Kerry believes we should tap their energy and idealism through a summer of service learning. Supervised by AmeriCorps members, these young people could help out in nursing homes, clean up local areas, or teach seniors computer skills. In turn, they would receive a $500 grant to apply to their college or vocational educations down the road.
Welcome to the communist states of america where all kids 13 and up work for Kerry.

They've since made some revisions to the plan:
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/national_service/
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/national_service/plan.html

But nothing beats having insight into how Kerry thinks, and what he wants, before he changes his mind because of the possibility of it making him unpopular.

I'd like to hear more about what Kerry wants to do from his own mouth, rather than listening to what he thinks GWB is doing wrong. Too bad he knows that would sink his ship.

wasnt it a liberal democrat who brought up the draft in the senate in 2003?

"As part of his 100 day plan to change America, John Kerry will propose a comprehensive service plan that includes requiring mandatory service for high school students "

yow. Wonder if the mainstream media is going to mention it. Well, I don't have to wonder, we already know they didn't :P

wasnt it a liberal democrat who brought up the draft in the senate in 2003?I think it was two democrats. But the bill got severely killed by a large margin - with over 400 against it.

Edit: http://www.madison.com/wsj/home/opinion/index.php?ntid=13079&ntpid=0
Let's hope the hoax about re-instating the military draft has suffered a mortal wound.


Since this summer, rumormongers have been spreading the word that the Bush administration was quietly trying to reinstate the draft. There was never any truth to the story, but that didn't stop the mongers from spreading the tale to frighten young men and women and their families into opposing President Bush's re-election.

This week the hoax had its legs cut from under it, at considerable embarrassment to its chief aider and abettor, Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y. Rangel had introduced legislation to restart the draft. He didn't really support the draft; he only used the bill to argue that the poor are serving disproportionately in Iraq and that President Bush is stretching the armed forces too thin.

The legislation, however, fed the rumormongers, who cited it to demonstrate how the Bush administration was pushing for renewal of the draft. E-mails to that effect proliferated on college campuses and were sent to newspaper editorial pages. Never mind that it was Rangel, a Bush opponent, who introduced it. And never mind that the Bush administration repeated that it had no plans for a draft.

On Tuesday Republicans called Rangel's bluff. They brought the bill to a vote. It was defeated 402 to 2. Even the outmaneuvered Rangel had to vote against it.

Thanks for those clarifications Jason.

I'm getting sick of the BS, and I am not fooled by the Democrats tactics. They do not ever want to admit their plans because they know the public would loudly disapprove, then they accuse Bush of wanting to do what they have already made plans to do themselves, but won't admit it.

As Ann Coulter said, they are willing to insult the intelligence of 49% of the public if they can fool the rest of them.

Now come on you guys. National Service vs. Military Draft. Please. Are you afraid that a bunch of high school students will be used to fight a war? Maybe if the war was fought on Xbox. He's talking about tutoring and cleaning parks. 4chrissakes.

Now come on you guys. National Service vs. Military Draft. Please. Are you afraid that a bunch of high school students will be used to fight a war? Maybe if the war was fought on Xbox. He's talking about tutoring and cleaning parks. 4chrissakes.Yeah, 13-17, after that you're in the military for 2 years.

I'm sorry, I'm blind. Could you point me to the part where it mentions the military?

woops, it looks like you're right, I scanned over it and only saw required service for the 13-17 year olds. If I find otherwise I'll post.

and from the looks of it, he's backed off the whole "required" and "mandatory" parts as well.
BTW Jason FWIW, I voted for you in the poll. :)

What poll?

D'oh! You didn't know? :D
http://www.rx8club.com/showthread.php?p=558027#post558027

LOL

now I feel special. I'd vote for MentalPimp, but he isn't listed :(

I wanted to vote for Doc too, but I don't live in Chicago. :) oh wait, then I'd have to be dead...