which speculations?

wyndhy,

Well, two that come to mind are the unsubstantiated suggestion that the Vice President is violating federal law, and another is that, in the absence of proof to the contrary, the Vice President is guilty as accused.

All that site gave was the law it did not list Chenney's holdings.

Jude30,

In light of that, permit me to refer you to my previous post.

Would you mind being less cryptic and just saying what you mean?

Jude30,

I did say what I meant in my post to wyndhy above. I find the unsubstantiated suggestion that the Vice President is violating federal law (and must have been doing so for more than seven years), and that, in the absence of proof to the contrary, the Vice President is guilty as accused, amusing speculations.

I would think it's common knowledge. I don't need to cite every bibliographical reference here. I'd invite you to disprove my opinions.

Steph,

I shall take that as an admission that you are unable to substantiate your claim.

And I asked if you had seen his holdings report. Since he's supposed to release it. Seriously do you honestly expect your argument to be just a block of legalese that noone but a lawyer can understand, and expect us to read through it all to detect the one tid bit of information that you want us to know?

i gotta say, jseal, i didn't see where anyone said it was illegal, just immoral. perhaps i missed it.

I guess I knew starting this thread you could attempt to thwart debate with your quest for links. In any case, if you look at my first post, I asked for links and some lovely Pixies provided them. Read them and then tell me again I can't substantiate my claim.

That was never my point in starting the thread. I debated starting it but I just got miffed thinking about Cheney's profits.

I certainly didn't start this thread to begin a link-pissing contest with you. AGAIN, I'd ask you to provide me with links that DISPROVE my claims. Show me the links that show Cheney is starving because of this war. YOU show me links that Halliburton ISN'T profiting from this war. Man, you're the biggest wet blanket I've ever "met".

In order:

Jude30,

You give your location as Midwest. I live in Maryland. This means that we share the common heritage that people are presumed innocent until proven guilty. In this instance, it seems that you expect the accused to prove his innocence by providing what you think you need to make that assessment.

Steph,

I commend your clairvoyance in knowing that I might be so rude as to ask you to substantiate your claims. You were correct, and remain so. I believe that wyndhy was referring to your posts as accusing Mr. Cheney of immoral behavior. I do think it appropriate to back up such accusations with persuasive data, even if you do not.

In general:

If either of you are interested in securing the information you presume exists and further presume will support your positions, you may begin your efforts by following this link, which points you to where you may get it. This is not unusual; reviewing the tax returns of those covered by ETHICS IN GOVERNMENT ACT has been done by others in the past.

Note please that I am not saying that Mr. Cheney is innocent of the behavior of which you accuse him. I do find it odd that the immoral behavior of which he is accused has managed to slip past those in a position to exploit it – Congress - while being so generally known that supporting evidence is unnecessary.

The first time I recall such vitriolic loathing was when I was working in Jeddah. One of my co-workers was a Brit who loved to hate the current PM, Margaret Thatcher. Once, after a particularly impressive rant, during which he accused her of precipitating the Falklands War, I asked him if he thought she liked seeming people in misery. He paused for a moment, and then said “Yes”. At least he was consistent.

The last time I recall such irrational fulminations was when President Clinton was impeached. Fortunately fewer than 67 votes could be mustered in the Senate trial.

I am persuaded that, based upon your unsubstantiated claims of immoral behavior and “guilty until proven innocent” positions, and that when these surprising positions were identified, they were claimed to be acceptable, there exists no reasoned response to your positions. As mere facts of law seem only to be inconveniences, law seems insufficient. As requests for facts are considered a hindrance to this discussion, it leaves it “fact free”.

I am unsure what contribution I might be able to make to a fact free discussion unencumbered by the inconvenience of lawful behavior.

Congress has has no will to "exploit" any accusations of wrongdoing in the current administration until this past year, & even now the opposition majority is so slim as to preclude any real attempt to do so. Witness the feeble gasps of outrage concerning the Valerie Plame incident, the firing of attorneys for political reasons, and the endless list of other wrongdoings by the Bush/Chaney dictatorship that have gone unchallenged.

Anyone who doubts what I'm saying here is encouraged to look into the book Takeover ...if you're not pissed-off & terrified yet, as Yoda said, "You will be..."

scotzoidman,

Oh Puhlease! It incendiary remarks of this nature which make it difficult to discuss difficult, but important, issues reasonably.

why does that term "dictatorship" upset you so, jseal?