Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
News We Can't Use
On National Public Radio's "All Things Considered" the other evening, I caught a story about President Barack Obama and the news media. The gist of it was that while Obama has promised to run an open and transparent administration, and while he's already loosened the stranglehold that former President George W. Bush put on the Freedom of Information Act, the traditional press was feeling excluded.
"I just also want to be sure the president and the people who work for him are being subject to people who are trained as journalists and who are asking the questions that perhaps some of the people watching things from out there in the country are not able to ask," said Bill Nichols, the managing editor of Politico.
This would be the trained press, Mr. Nichols, that bought - hook, line and sinker, I must say - the president as a great leader after 9/11; the "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq; the "mission accomplished" speech on the aircraft carrier; the "Valerie Plame is a spy" leak; the ones who never challenged Bush at all until Cindy Sheehan's unbelievable guts and rage forced them to reexamine themselves; who never once protested over Bush's treatment of one of their own, Helen Thomas; and who bought into all the other lies, deceptions, obfuscations and secrets of the Bush administration years?
Would they be the same ones who covered the recent campaign as if they worked for People Magazine - Muslim terrorists, fist bumps, the invincibility of Hillary Clinton, illegitimate babies in Alaska, the Clintonista PUMAs (Party unity my ass) who would vote for McCain before they voted for that other guy, and all the rest of it - until serious people wanted to vomit?
And in the end, it was those serious people, millions of them wanting not only a change in government but a change in the quality of their information, who flocked to the Internet, to The Daily Kos and Nate Silver's statistics on FiveThirtyEight.com, to find out what was really happening. And these people knew months before Election Day that Obama had it in the bag.
Has it gotten any better since? Does the name Milorad "Rod" R. Blagojevich mean anything to you? Another example: on Inauguration Day, CBS's Katie Couric talked about how the cold affected cellos, and why Yo Yo Ma would be using one made out of sturdier material than wood to play for the president. Two days later, I read that the concert had been prerecorded, and he could have been playing on a cardboard cutout for all it mattered. Not to slam Couric above all the others, but it certainly brought me back to the time she was covering the Macy's Thanksgiving Day parade and a helium balloon escaped. It knocked down a lamp post and injured some people, so when it came time for it to appear on camera, CBS shunted in footage from an earlier year. Couric didn't say a word. Then she wondered why no one took her seriously when she became an anchor.
The mainstream media, with its conventional wisdom, its fear of losing access, the lie of "objectivity" ("And why do the Jews deserve to die, Mr. Hitler?"), and it's willingness to be a conductor for any propaganda the government decides to pass out, has got a long way to go before the American people can once again take it seriously.
It was Thomas Jefferson who said, "And were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate to prefer the latter." Still, if Jefferson was alive, he'd be vomiting, too.
There are serious journalists out there. We wouldn't know about the Bush administration's intention to attack Iraq without Seymour M. Hersh's reports in The New Yorker, or about Abu Ghraib, without Hersh and that 60 Minutes II news report. We wouldn't know about black site prisons if it weren't for Washington Post reporter Dana Priest, or about how wounded veterans were being treated shabbily at Walter Reed Army Medical Center if it wasn't for Priest, Anne Hull and photographer Michel du Cille. Priest has two Pulitzer's for her work, and she deserves them. Amy Goodman has none, and she broadcasts every single day, sometimes risking her freedom and/or her life to do so.
There is much more to be reported upon. The great journalist I.F. Stone used to avoid press briefings and staged events. Instead, he'd spend his time in the archives and record rooms, poring over documents. He got his scoops the old-fashioned way - with hard work and without a hair stylist.
Newspapers, magazines and television networks are enduring hard times today. There are many reasons: the greed of their owners, who tied themselves to Wall Street; the shrinking economy and the accompanying loss of ads; the ease and availability of breaking news and commentary on the Internet. Washington and state house bureaus are being cut. The only place for foreign news is on the BBC.
The way we get our news is changing, and new ideas of how to deliver it are being created as I write. But one thing is certain: journalism will never die. It is a calling for those who practice it, and it fills our desperate need to know what's happening in our complex world.
It will take time, money and courage before we come up with a new model, but we must and we will. Thomas Jefferson was right, and we must make him proud.
- Posted in

64 Comments so far
Show AllSeveral days ago on ATC senior correspondent Maura Liason observed that President Obama's Muslim background might be a great help to US efforts towards Middle East peace. Someone needs to tell Maura that:
1. Obama was baptized a Christian as an adult
2. Prior to that he had no recognized religious preference.
3. That Arabic (from which his middle name "Hussein" is derived) is a language
and not a religion.
What a bunch of worthless and blind guides "Washington based journallists" have become.
Poet
What you said.
Poet,that is why it is called the whore media!
Someone needs to tell you, Poet, that
her name is not "Maura." It's Mara.
Someone needs to tell you, Poet, that
her name is not "Maura." It's Mara.
And her name is not Liason. It's Liasson.
Poet January 28th, 2009 3:24 pm, keep in mind Mara Liasson, as well as working for NPR, also has a regular gig on Fox News with Brit Hume and Fox News Sunday.
It's a given that you don't work for Roger Ailes unless he can use you to his, or the GOPs, advantage, so she is hardly an unbiased reporter, even in the realm of the decrepit US Big Media. The best you can say is that she is too stupid to know she is being used.
Hey, Rodinman thanks for the spell check, but, honest, I got the message the first time--no need for duplicate posts. By the way, I put my reply to you under RSJ's message so that it would be easier for you to see.
Poet
What American journalism needs is a giant enema. Many more articles such as this one will do the job.
q
quickstepper January 28th, 2009 4:11 pm, perhaps Katie Couric was working on that with her embarrassing televised protological stunt. ;)
Cicero: "Freedom is participation in power."
Listening to "mainstream" corporatist journalists talk about "trained journalists" or "professional journalism" is like listening to House Republican uberhauptmann (R) Rep. John Boehner (the correct pronunciation in German is closer to "Boner," not "Baynor" as the press purringly pretends) lecture the Obama administration about fiscal accountability in the stimulus package. Joseph Stiglitz and others have shown that, Wall Street's $11 Trillion dollar implosion aside, Bush II and the Republican dominated Congress that lasted for Duhhbya's first six years pissed away $10 Trillion dollars on their own. Zero accountability, zero oversight. And the corporate press covered up their fiscal insanity year after year after year.
Fiscal insanity? I guess that depends on your point of view. Halliburton stockholders did incredibly well under Bush II. Likewise Blackwater. Likewise defense contractors. The price of a Humvee went up 400% since March 2003. In some quarters Bush II is looked upon as a huge success. However, for living, breathing human beings in Iraq and in Afghanistan, and for taxpayers and a few thousand U.S. soldiers, maybe not so good.
-- ekaton aka d.k.shaw
"Halliburton stockholders did incredibly well under Bush II."
Wrong. When Bush was sworn in 1/20/01 Halliburton closed at $18.56. On the last day the market traded with Bush in office 1/16/09, it closed at $17.74. That's called a "loss".
http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/news/lesar_stock.html
Halliburton CEO's stock rises by $78 million since Iraq invasion
15 Sept. 2005
WASHINGTON, Sept. 15 (HalliburtonWatch.org) -- War and skyrocketing oil prices have been good to Halliburton's CEO David Lesar, whose stock in the company increased by an estimated $78 million since the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003, a HalliburtonWatch analysis reveals.
In March 2003, the first month of the Iraq invasion, corporate disclosure records show Lesar owned 1.476 million common shares and share options in Halliburton worth $30 million. At the end of stock trading yesterday, those shares were worth $93 million, for a $63 million gain. Subsequent to the Iraq invasion, Lesar boosted his total holdings in the company from $93 million to $108 million by acquiring a net 243,000 additional shares, thereby increasing his stock holdings by $78 million since March 2003.
Halliburton's stock price tripled since the Iraq invasion from $20 to $63.
Lesar owns an additional 644,575 shares of "restricted stock," or stock that may be sold only if he satisfies certain goals and requirements of the corporation. If Lesar is authorized by Halliburton to sell those shares, they would be worth an additional $40.8 million as of yesterday's closing stock price.
In the last 24 months, Lesar sold $18.8 million worth of Halliburton stock, with $16.3 million sold this year alone.
On September 1, three days after Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans, he sold stock pursuant to his stock option plan, earning a one-day profit of $720,100. One week later, on September 8, he similarly earned a one-day profit of $782,000 by selling stock.
$13.6 Billion in Iraq Revenue
Lesar has presided over a period for the company that has corrected the mistakes created by former CEO and current U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney. After Cheney left the firm in 2000 to run for vice president, Halliburton was forced to deal with the legacy of his incompetent decisions made while he was CEO, decisions that forced parts of the company into bankruptcy. Those problems have mostly been solved under Lesar's leadership. In the last four reported quarters, Halliburton received $20 billion in revenue and earned $1.9 billion in operating income.
Iraq-related contracts amounted to $13.6 billion in revenue for the company since March 2003. Nonetheless, most of Halliburton's profit is earned from its energy services business, not the war. Higher gasoline prices have required oil companies to build additional oil rigs, something Halliburton leads the world in doing.
The company's skyrocketing stock price also reflects, in part, a market expectation that the company might one day benefit from Iraq's large oil reserves.
'Jacking Up the Margins'
Lesar complained last year about the low profit margins earned in Iraq from the company's troop support contract with the Army, known as "LOGCAP." He even threatened to charge the Army with higher costs by declaring that he would "jack the margins up significantly" if companies other than Halliburton are allowed to bid for new work under LOGCAP. He made his comments in response to a U.S. military recommendation that called for the immediate termination of the LOGCAP contract so that other, less scandalous, firms can be hired to assist the soldiers.
"Jacking up the margins" is already standard practice at Halliburton via cost overcharges. Those overcharges helped boost the company's war profits by 284 percent during the second quarter of this year.
Audits conducted by the Pentagon's Defense Contract Audit Agency determined that KBR had $1 billion in "questioned" expenses (i.e. expenses which military auditors consider "unreasonable") and $442 million in "unsupported" expenses (i.e. expenses which military auditors have determined contain no receipt or any explanation on how the expenses were disbursed).
Despite the cost overcharges, numerous critical reports from military auditors and the public outcry against Halliburton, Washington continues to drag its feet in dealing with the company's continuing rip-off of U.S. taxpayers.
"Most people would sooner die than think, in fact they do so. Bertrand Russell
At the close of ther market yesterday Halliburton was trading at $19.47.
But this issue isnt the stock price at any given point it is the enormous profits generated by the war profiteering.
"Most people would sooner die than think, in fact they do so. Bertrand Russell
"Halliburton's stock price tripled since the Iraq invasion from $20 to $63. "
So what? On the last day of trading on Bush's watch it was below what it was when Bush took office. The stock *lost* money over that time, contrary to what the original claim was.
Some bought and held, and now they are down a buck a share. Some bought at $20 and sold at $60. None of this is germane to the sentiment and intent of my previous comment. You should have sold half your shares at $60, Jake.
-- ekaton aka d.k.shaw
I'll bet Dick Cheney exercised his Halliburton options wisely....Im glad someone got the point.....
"Most people would sooner die than think, in fact they do so. Bertrand Russell
"I'll bet Dick Cheney exercised his Halliburton options wisely"
He hasn't done so yet, looked like he missed out.
I woudl appreciate access you claim to have to his blind trust and the activities therein.
"Most people would sooner die than think, in fact they do so. Bertrand Russell
"I woudl appreciate access you claim to have to his blind trust and the activities therein."
Since the former VP was an insider at Halliburton his exercising of his stock options would be public record. I see no evidence he has exercised them. If you say he did the onus is on *you* to provide evidence.
That is a disingenuous comment and one that tells me you may very well be insincere.
The following links really do negate your supposition that Cheney lost money on Halliburton stock, dontcha think?
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Cheneys_stock_options_rose_3281_last_1011.html
Cheney's Halliburton stock options rose 3,281% last year, senator finds
An analysis released by a Democratic senator found that Vice President Dick Cheney's Halliburton stock options have risen 3,281 percent in the last year, RAW STORY can reveal.
Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) asserts that Cheney's options -- worth $241,498 a year ago -- are now valued at more than $8 million. The former CEO of the oil and gas services juggernaut, Cheney has pledged to give proceeds to charity.
...Whether or not he gave them to charity this certainly shows that he got them!
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2004/02/16/040216fa_fact
Cheney earned forty-four million dollars during his tenure at Halliburton. Although he has said that he “severed all my ties with the company,” he continues to collect deferred compensation worth approximately a hundred and fifty thousand dollars a year, and he retains stock options worth more than eighteen million dollars. He has announced that he will donate proceeds from the stock options to charity.
"Most people would sooner die than think, in fact they do so. Bertrand Russell
Why are you citing stories that are 3 and 4 years old? Halliburton stock has plummeted with the rest of the market. Those stories simply don't apply anymore.
"Most people would sooner die than think, "
I certainly agree with you here, now start thinking. You've completely lost your focus. It's none of my business but maybe you should just cut your losses at this point.
I refuse to engage in you game ofwho can be more pompous.
You asked me to show if Cheney profited from his holdings in Halliburton, I did so. You have resisted a number of posters notions that , while Halliburton stock may have traded high once and now low there was much profit made in that stock.
If one cannot debate in the spirit of openness and polite exchanges then perhaps one is less than confident in oneself.
"Most people would sooner die than think, in fact they do so. Bertrand Russell
"I refuse to engage in you game of who can be more pompous."
Right, and then you go on to say:
"You asked me to show if Cheney profited from his holdings in Halliburton, I did so."
Absolutely 100% *false*. And *pompous* of you I would add. You used articles several years old to show the *market value* of the stock opptions several years ago. That market value has since plummeted. There is no *profit* made on stock options unless they are exercised. Do you understand that now?
I might suggest that you do a little studying on what "stock options" are so that you might have the knowledge for next time. You will be a better man for it Rick, even if you won't want to admit it.
"You have resisted a number of posters notions that , while Halliburton stock may have traded high once and now low there was much profit made in that stock."
And those notions were irrelevent, because there was also much *loss* in that same stock as I showed, contrary to prevailing *notions*.
"If one cannot debate in the spirit of openness and polite exchanges then perhaps one is less than confident in oneself."
What a *pompous* statement. When one cannot be confident in one's position because they are demonstrably *wrong* on the basic facts, perhaps one should not use one's supposed "politeness" and "openess" in an attempt to save face after they've had their butt soundly kicked. You are a better man for the experience now though, because next time you should be able to avoid it. Cheers!
jakenewton February 1st, 2009 11:26 am, giving gratuitous lectures on pomposity and being the 'better man by admitting you're wrong'? It's just too funny.
Still trying desperately to win an argument you've lost? That's hilarious too.
Please keep it up, Jake, I haven't laughed so hard in a week.
"Still trying desperately to win an argument you've lost?"
*sigh* One more time for Dum Dum:
Here's the paltry Halliburton dividend history:
http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=67605&p=irol-dividends
When Bush was sworn in 1/20/01 Halliburton closed at $18.56. On the last day the market traded with Bush in office 1/16/09, it closed at $17.74. That's called a "loss"."
Source:
http://ir.halliburton.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=67605&p=irol-stockLookup
"It doesn't really matter how many links or how much fact you provide, he's not really interested in honest debate,"
Are you going to take this statement back after you fail to disprove that Halliburton stock lost value over Bush's tenure and that the dividends were insignificant? No you won't because *you* are dishonest.
"Please keep it up, Jake, I haven't laughed so hard in a week."
If you think being wrong yourself is so funny, great! LOLOLOL!!!!!!
It is increasingly clear that "winning" is more important to you than being right. I feel for you sir, really I do. Here is a citing , yet again,from my link above( perhaps you missed it) indicating that Cheney benefited from his Halliburton connection:
"The former CEO of the oil and gas services juggernaut, Cheney has pledged to give proceeds to charity."
I suppose you will now say that he pledged money he didnt have? Much more important however is that one must wonder why you defend with such tenacity that which opposes the plain truth?
If you are just going to repeat the same tired canard that the argument hinges only upon the two stock quotes please dont bother. I have fourteen grandkids and get all the juvenile logic I need....
"Most people would sooner die than think, in fact they do so. Bertrand Russell
Red Rick February 2nd, 2009 6:50 am, Jake is deep in his mania now -- he's 'LOLing' his own jokes and shouting insults. As your tagline says, "Most people would sooner die than think, in fact they do so."
In this case, we could paraphrase Russell's quote to fit the current thread: "Most people would sooner lie than think; in facts, Jake does so."
"I suppose you will now say that he pledged money he didnt have? "
Concerning his pledge to charity, this is precisely correct. The "proceeds" referred to obviously concern proceeds realized upon the *future* exercising of the options. That hasn't happened yet, thus the proceeds do not exist, i.e. Cheney does not "have this money" exactly as you said. I'll help you here since you don't know about options: Cheney was provided an option by Halliburton to buy stock at a some fixed price set by Halliburton. By exercising this option, he could then sell those shares right back into the market at a higher price. He makes money, just like anyone else in the market, by buying low and selling high. But he hasn't done that yet. Your articles refer to the value of this option, i.e. the difference between the fixed price and the market price *at that time*. However, today in early 2009, the market value for Halliburton is less than one third of what it was at the time those articles were written. Sadly, if Dick exercised his options today, those carities would get proceeds far less than if he had done so back in '03 and '04.
I hope this was helpful. Here is a place to get more information on stock options:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Option_(finance)
In just a few minutes of reading you will understand why the market conditions of several years ago would not apply to today's valuation of those options, and how there could be no actual proceeds unless he actually exercised the options.
" I have fourteen grandkids "
That is quite an accomplishment for you, very admirable. There is no shame having lived as long as you have and not yet learned about stock options. Many many people your age are in the same boat, it's a pretty dry topic. Check out the wiki article I linked above.
I must reject further discourse with you as it becomes increasingly obvious that you care not one whit how much you are embarrassing yourself here.
"Most people would sooner die than think, in fact they do so. Bertrand Russell
Rick, you should never make a post like this. You should either address the subject of the options or just keep quiet. It is far more likely from my point of vue that *you* are embarassed for not knowing about stock ortions. You shouldn't be. Just read up on it. Good luck.
"Some bought and held, and now they are down a buck a share."
Yes.
"Some bought at $20 and sold at $60."
Very few people are likely to have detected the low and bought there, which was a good bit less than $20, and sell at the top. That kind of market timing skill/luck is extremely rare. And in any case, since for every buyer there must be a seller, so those selling at $60 sold to someone. If *those* people are still holding they are *down* over $40 a share. See how this works?
"None of this is germane to the sentiment and intent of my previous comment."
You said:
"Halliburton stockholders did incredibly well under Bush II."
So your assertion that the present discussion is not "germane to the sentiment and intent of my previous comment" is puzzling. If you did not mean "Halliburton stockholders did incredibly well under Bush II.", then what did you mean to say and why didn't you say it?
"You should have sold half your shares at $60, Jake."
Perhaps a good hedging strategy, but I only buy index funds. I am no doubt invested in all kinds of evil military companies, as well as nice green or conflict free companies.
Who will be able to trace the monies hidden in offshore accounts?
jakenewton January 28th, 2009 10:49 pm, that's also called 'misleading.' Stock prices fluctuate, but Halliburton (HAL) sold at $9 a share in mid-2002 before the Iraq War. Following the start of the war in March 2003, HAL stock rates shot up to a high of $68.52 per share in late 2005. Overall revenues also increased from $12.5 billion in Dec. 2002 to $20.5 billion in Dec. 2004. Anyone owning stock in HAL during those years increased their dividend and made a profit on any stock sales.
So to say that the Bush did not help, via his Iraq War, the investors in HAL and its then-subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR) is false and misleading.
"that's also called 'misleading."
How can that be misleading? Those beginning and ending prices vis a vis Bush's presidency are *fact*.
"Stock prices fluctuate"
Yes they do, and the valley and dip you refer to simply don't matter any more to someone who bought in the day Bush took office. To have profited on the dip and spike, one would have had to have bought and then sold at the right time.
"So to say that the Bush did not help, via his Iraq War, the investors in HAL and its then-subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR) is false and misleading."
I never said that. I was responding to someone stating that one did well "under Bush". The stock lost value "under Bush". To say otherwise would require identifying specific stockholders who were able to solve issues of market timing that apply to *any* stock, not just Halliburton.
Just a question: Did Bush "help" Halliburton investors during the period that the stock lost around 50% of it's value just afte he took office?
jakenewton January 29th, 2009 9:50 am, you are obscuring the point. If you were collecting dividends from HAL stock during the time Bush was president, you saw a substantial increase in, and return from, your investment -- in other words, you made money from the rise in HAL's stock price during the Iraq War whether or not you sold your stock.
You wrote: "Just a question: Did Bush "help" Halliburton investors during the period that the stock lost around 50% of it's value just afte he took office?"
Not just after he took office, but over his 8-year tenure as president.
"If you were collecting dividends from HAL stock during the time Bush was president, you saw a substantial increase in, and return from, your investment"
Around 12 cents per share per quarter. Substantial?
"Not just after he took office, but over his 8-year tenure as president."
We've established a drop in price over those eight years.
jakenewton January 29th, 2009 8:49 pm, if a stock goes from $9 a share to $60 a share, the investor receives much more than 12 cents a share per quarter in dividends.
"We've established a drop in price over those eight years."
No, 'we've' established no such thing; you think you have established that, but then you're apparently satisfied getting a 12-cent per share per quarter return on a stock priced at $60 a share.
"jakenewton January 29th, 2009 8:49 pm, if a stock goes from $9 a share to $60 a share, the investor receives much more than 12 cents a share per quarter in dividends."
False. Dividends are not determined by stock price, they are set by the board of directors of the company. Here are the Halliburton dividend history:
http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=67605&p=irol-dividends
Note that historic price data prior to splits is adjusted to account for the split so as to not show a sudden one day drop where there was none.
No, 'we've' established no such thing; you think you have established that,
*I* established the *fact* of the price in an earlier post:
"When Bush was sworn in 1/20/01 Halliburton closed at $18.56. On the last day the market traded with Bush in office 1/16/09, it closed at $17.74. That's called a "loss"."
Source:
http://ir.halliburton.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=67605&p=irol-stockLookup
"but then you're apparently satisfied getting a 12-cent per share per quarter return on a stock priced at $60 a share."
LOL! *You* are the one claiming thay made great returns on dividends. Now you know it's not true. This stuff is easy to look up, you should do so before making unfounded claims.
jakenewton January 30th, 2009 9:20 am, in keeping with your method, I took the first word of your reply and the last word of your reply to characterize the entirety of your comment: "False claims."
Say maybe there's something to this, as that pretty much sums up all of your posts on this subject.
Have a nice life investing in $60-per-share stocks that only pay a 12-cents a share quarterly dividend. (BTW, you don't mind if I quote some of your 'wisdom' to friends of mine who are investors do you? They need a good laugh these days.)
"to characterize the entirety of your comment: "False claims.""
Instead of "characterizing" my comments as false, why don't you instead *demonstrate* them to be false? Because you can't, that's why. My position on the argument stands, and backed up with *facts*.
"$60-per-share stocks that only pay a 12-cents a share quarterly "
And that too was a *fact*, also supported with evidence available to anyone. Most company dividends are anly a few percentage points per year when all told. You are new at this, else you would have known that already and not tried to make the *false* claim that Halliburton shareholders were somehow making money hands over fist on small dividend payments, or that they were somehow tied to the share price.
jakenewton January 31st, 2009 11:39 am, Red Rick has already amply demonstrated with facts (I'm not sure why you felt the need to put an asterisk on either side of that word, but so be it) that HAL investors made piles of money during Bush's presidency, regardless of the recent downturn in the stock price, so there is no need to present further evidence that you are talking out of your high hat. All the rest of your comments are mere blather, some of which is hilarious. (You should really remind readers to tip the bartender.)
I just hope you aren't trying to gull innocent people into thinking you're some kind of an expert on the stock market.
BTW, Jake, care to invest in a hedge fund with Lehman Brothers?
I agree that this poster's motivation is mysterious...I refuse to engage him on his level however. Proof piles up in direct ratio with his snippyness it seems.
"Most people would sooner die than think, in fact they do so. Bertrand Russell
Red Rick January 31st, 2009 4:45 pm, I've been down this road with Jake before on other threads at CD. It doesn't really matter how many links or how much fact you provide, he's not really interested in honest debate, just playing a game of smug oneupmanship. Good for you that you caught on so quickly -- it took me much longer.
"I've been down this road with Jake before on other threads at CD."
Let's pay attention to the *current* discussion, the one about D.C. and his stock options.
"It doesn't really matter how many links or how much fact you provide, "
Rick provided links that were irrelevent because they were 3 and 4 years old, and when confronted with this was unable to get back on track. Since you seem to think you are keeping score with me, I'll point out that we noew have in the current discussion those stock options as yet unexercised, absent evidence to the contrary.
"he's not really interested in honest debate,"
How utterly hypocritical and *dishonest* of you. Far more respectable is to simply admit you are wrong when you are wrong and move on. I've done that and it makes you better. Or you could just stop posting. But to actually post garbage about honesty in the face of the record? The way you have just done? How foolish.
jakenewton February 1st, 2009 11:38 am -- whew! Seems somebody got stung.
Funny, I can't recall a single time when you've admitted you were wrong about anything. Instead, you always demand the other poster admit he or she is wrong and confess it openly.
"Or you could just stop posting."
I can see from this comment you've become a better person, Jake, basically telling others to 'shut up' if they disagree with you.
Thanks for the entertainment, Jake. Do you do weddings and bar mitzvahs?
Give him a big hand, folks, he's here all week.
"Funny, I can't recall a single time when you've admitted you were wrong about anything."
I agree, not in any discussion you were involved in. But here is an example of a discussion I had here with someone I disagree with but who was at least honest about it:
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/12/10-1
And I'll bet you don't see eye to eye with M1 in the above thread either.
" Instead, you always demand the other poster admit he or she is wrong and confess it openly. "
Once more for Dum Dum who makes a blatantly dishonest statement above: I just happened in this post to *suggest* that you admit you were wrong after *demonstrating* that you were wrong. Halliburton stocks have *lost* money over Bush's tenure and have paid only *small* dividends. Have a nice evening.
jakenewton February 1st, 2009 10:51 pm, actually, Jake, I didn't 'prove' you wrong, Red Rick did.
But keep trying -- we're down to 'Dum Dum' now; can't wait to see what playground taunt you come up with next. More proof that you're just, all the way around, a superior person.
"I didn't 'prove' you wrong,"
We finally agree on something! Progress.
"Red Rick did."
No he didn't. In oreder to do that he would have had to have shown that the former VP exercised his stock options. He hasn't yet. They are just sitting around with a market value far less than they were in '04, the time frame his link referred to.
Do you understand that about stock options yet? That they have to be excercised to realize a profit? Have you read anything about stock options last night so you would be up to speed?
"we're down to 'Dum Dum' now;"
It seems to fit you. The idea in this case is that you think you won an argument when you haven't. That's dumb. The current, up to date, and applicable information I posted concerning Halliburton stock prices has not yet been refuted by either of you. Your only hope is to somehow disprove that information and that's going to be impossible.
Please read the wiki article on stock options I posted.
Such a foolish man...
The American Revolution was 250 years ago, thus I guess that's irrelevant too? The question was whether Cheney profited not WHEN.
I try hard to refrain from insult, but there are those who make it sooo difficult.
"Most people would sooner die than think, in fact they do so. Bertrand Russell