About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Liz Cheney rushes to defend Halliburton, ignores gov't fraud allegations

June 06, 2010 6:34 pm ET — 151 Comments

On ABC's This Week, Liz Cheney ridiculed Arianna Huffington for her statement that Halliburton defrauded the government out of hundreds of millions of dollars. In fact, federal agencies have repeatedly accused Halliburton and its former subsidiary, KBR, of fraud with regard to its work in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

Cheney: The "assertion that Halliburton defrauded the U.S. Government" has "no relationship to the facts"

From the June 6 edition of ABC's This Week:

ARIANNA HUFFINGTON: Right here we have the poster child of Bush-Cheney crony capitalism -- Halliburton -- involved in this, and you haven't said about that. They, after all, were responsible for cementing the well. Here's Halliburton, after it defrauded the American taxpayer hundreds of millions of dollars--

LIZ CHENEY: Arianna, I don't know what planet you live on --

HUFFINGTON: -- it's involved again.

CHENEY: -- but it's not -- it's not facts.

HUFFINGTON: I'm living on this planet, you're living in a planet that is --

CHENEY: Arianna, what you're saying has no relationship --

HUFFINGTON: -- continuing --

CHENEY: -- to the truth. No relationship to the facts.

HUFFINGTON: It is completely -- Halliburton was involved in this. How can you say --

[crosstalk]

JAKE TAPPER [host]: Halliburton was cementing the pipe.

HUFFINGTON: How can you say there's no relationship?

CHENEY: Her assertion that Halliburton defrauded the U.S. government --

HUFFINGTON: It did.

CHENEY: -- that there was Bush-Cheney cronyism. These are the left's talking points.

HUFFINGTON: Hundreds of millions of dollars in Iraq --

CHENEY: Arianna, it's absolutely not true. It is absolutely not true.

HUFFINGTON: OK, I'm so glad PolitiFact is going to be covering this.

CHENEY: Good.

HUFFINGTON: I'm so glad.

DOD auditor referred dozens of cases of suspected fraud, irregular conduct by Halliburton subsidiary, suspended or disapproved hundred of millions in billings

DOD audits of Halliburton's Iraq and Afghanistan contract found at least $1.4 billion in questioned and $441 million in unsupported costs. In December 2001, the federal government awarded the Logistics Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP) III contract to Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root (KBR). Under that contract, KBR provided support for government personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan. On April 5, 2007, Halliburton announced it had separated from KBR. At a May 4, 2009 hearing of the Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) - a Department of Defense agency that audits Pentagon contracts -- presented data on its audits of KBR's LOGCAP III contract. According to the data, DCAA audits completed* prior to Halliburton's separation from KBR found more than $1.4 billion in questioned costs and $441 million in unsupported costs. According to the DCAA, questioned costs are "costs proposed or claimed by the contractor which DCAA considers to be unallowable in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulations or contract terms and conditions," and unsupported costs are "costs for which the contractor has not provided sufficient rationale for their estimates."

DOD audits led to $452M in suspended or disapproved costs. According to the DCAA document, when an audit finds a questioned or unsupported document, "if the contractor does not voluntarily remove the costs from billings" the "DCAA issues a Form 1, Notice of Contract Costs Suspended and/or Disapproved, to suspend or disapprove costs." DCAA suspended or disapproved over $452 million in costs claimed by KBR through the LOGCAP III contract that were completed* before Halliburton separated from KBR.

Examples of suspended or disapproved costs include "KBR charg[ing] the government for significantly more meals than were actually served." As an example of an exception produced by the audits, DCAA director April Stephenson stated:

For instance, the Army's Statement of Work required KBR to provide up to a specified number of meals per month to be served at a particular camp. Our audit determined KBR's subcontractors served significantly fewer meals. DCAA took exception to the costs of the excess meals and issued over 90 "DCAA Forms 1" suspending or disapproving over $130 million.

DOD audits noted 32 examples of suspected "fraud or other suspected irregular conduct" by Iraq and Afghanistan contractors, the "vast majority" of which were from KBR. According to the DCAA's data, the agency referred to investigative agencies 32 cases of suspected fraud or other irregular conduct with regard to Iraq and Afghanistan contractors. Of those 32, 21 were referred prior to the date Halliburton severed ties with KBR. At the May 4, 2009, hearing, Stephenson testified that the "vast majority" of those 32 referrals were related to KBR's contract. She added: "That is unprecedented, and any program that we have had in the past to have that many referrals, it absolutely concerns us," adding that "in the history of DCAA I do not think we are aware of a program, a contract or a contractor that has had this number of suspensions or referrals."         

DOJ suing KBR for "improper charges to the United States"

DOJ has announced a lawsuit against KBR for charging "improper costs" in Iraq from 2003 to 2006. On April 1, the Justice Department announced it had filed a lawsuit against KBR, alleging violations of the False Claims Act committed from 2003 to 2006 -- while KBR was owned by Halliburton. The suit "alleges that KBR knowingly included impermissible costs for private armed security in billings to the Army under the Logistics Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP) III contract."

KBR employees found guilty of defrauding the US Government

Three employees guilty of conspiracy in Afghanistan airfield fraud scheme. Former KBR employees James Sellman and Wallace Ward were charged in 2007 with conspiracy in a fraud scheme involving falsifying documents in exchange for payment at an Afghanistan airfield. According to the Justice Department:

James N. Sellman, 31, of Raeford, N.C., and Wallace A. Ward, 25, Columbus, Ga., were charged yesterday in a seven-count indictment with conspiracy, making a false writing, bribery, and making a false claim to the Department of Defense. The indictment alleges that between May and September 2006, while assigned to oversee fuel deliveries to Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan, Sellman and Ward conspired to accept bribes from Afghan truck drivers in return for falsifying government documents indicating receipt of the fuel and then diverting over 80 truckloads of fuel for sale outside the airfield. According to the indictment, the conspiracy involved over 784,000 gallons of fuel valued at more than $2.1 million.

Justice Department records show Sellman was sentenced in 2008 to 26 months in prison, three years of supervised release, and ordered to pay $675,000 in restitution; Ward was sentenced in 2008 to 26 months in prison and ordered to pay $216,000 in restitution. A third former employee, Raschad L. "Sean" Lewis, was found guilty in 2009 "of conspiracy, false writing, bribery of a public official, and false claims" for his part in the scheme.

Halliburton worker pleaded guilty to taking kickbacks on Iraqi subcontracts. According to an August 23, 2005, Washington Post article, Glenn Allen Powell, a KBR employee in Iraq from October 2003 to January 2005, "admitted to taking 20 percent off the top of a subcontract, or more than $110,000." The Post also noted: "While the scheme was ongoing, KBR had been unwittingly billing the U.S. government an inflated amount for reimbursement because of the 20 percent kickback. The difference has since been refunded."

KBR employee pleaded guilty to participating in kickback scheme with a Kuwaiti contractor. In July 2007, the Houston Chronicle reported that former KBR employee Anthony Martin "pleaded guilty to participating in a kickback scheme related to the award of a $4.7 million contract in 2003 to a Kuwaiti firm, the Department of Justice said." The Chronicle reported that Martin told a federal jury that in 2003, "he worked with the manager of the Kuwaiti firm to hide more than $50,000 in kickbacks within a subcontract for heavy trucks and refrigerator trailers."

 *These costs do not include audits that were completed after April 5, 2007, but covered the time period in which Halliburton owned KBR.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by IRONY 101 (June 06, 2010 6:48 pm ET)
      20  
      Liz Cheney lives on Planet Wingnut. Why is this woman still given air time to spout her nutty defenses of her father?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by epkklk851 (June 06, 2010 7:12 pm ET)
        16  
        Well, if you start drinking early enough in the day, it's pretty funny. She sounds way out of her league. If you just let her talk, it ruins the family defense.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Bad News (June 06, 2010 7:24 pm ET)
          14  
          IRONY-101,

          it's not "Air Time", it's "Hang Time"


          Mr. News


          Report Abuse
          • Author by Bad News (June 07, 2010 8:41 am ET)
            11 1
            Fox News went after ACORN for Months.
            But i've yet to see One Report on Haliburton's Stunts.
            Soldiers Electrocuted, The Golf of Mexico slowly turning into the Black Sea?
            Where's Dick Cheney? Can anyone Direct me to his Front Yard? "The Poet" needs to Pee.

            Speak truth to power.


            Mr. News
            Report Abuse
      • Author by NiceguyEddie (June 07, 2010 1:53 pm ET)
        6  
        People on the Right assume that a gay republican will somehow sound more legitimate to the mainstream and center-left. They do the same thing with Black Republicans - Juan Williams, Thomas Sowell, [this guy subbing for Limbaugh this week] Williams... Same deal.

        They think we're so obsessed over gender, sexuality and race that we wouldn't criticise someone who a member of a minority group, even if they're just parroting the same RW nonsense. Too bad (for them) that liberals actually THINK about the issues rather than getting overly obsessed about the race or sexuality of the speaker, like they think we do. That's what happened when you start believe your own parody of the opposition.

        You know what? I support gay marriage 100% except for Liz Cheney and any other homosexual who votes for the party that suppresses their rights. I'm pretty much fine with businesses discriminating against black republicans as well. Screw 'em. If these fools are stupid enough to vote against their civil liberties they DESERVE to lose them. And that's not RACIAL or SEXUALITY-based bigotry, that just being prejudiced against STUPIDITY.

        --------------------------------------------
        IMHO
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Floyd (June 07, 2010 2:30 pm ET)
            9
          eddie-- I support gay marriage 100% except for Liz Cheney and any other homosexual who votes for the party that suppresses their rights.

          So, how does that hypocrisy fit into your liberal claims of "progressiveness"? I thought you liberals want freedom for all? Now, it's just those that agree with you? How progressive ... better yet, how hypocritical! Good job, eddie
          Report Abuse
          • Author by NiceguyEddie (June 07, 2010 2:46 pm ET)
            7 1
            Next up is Third Baseman Mark Reynolds, here comes the pitch...
            easy one, right down the middle...
            Swing and a miss! ANOTHER strilkeout for Reynolds...

            no, wait... I'm sorry...

            That was just FLOYD, completely MISSING THE F---ING POINT! AGAIN!

            It was a satirical point, nimrod, meant to express my frustration at the preponderance of people out there who are stupid enough to be duped into voting against their social and economic interests. And while I shouldn't have to spell it out for you, pee-brain, while I DO NOT support making these kinds of things into LAW, I have very little sympathy for THOSE particular people, since they play a direct hand in bringing about the ROYAL SCREWING they recieve.

            ---------------------------------------------------------
            Now go away. I've dealt with enough of your stupidity to last a million years.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Floyd (June 07, 2010 2:52 pm ET)
              1 10
              Ooops, sorry, I didn't mean to point out your hypocrisy while you were making a non-point about gay rights (or lack there-of). Too bad you can't support your liberal theology (hypocrisy) any better than to say; oh, wait, I was being satirical. Too bad you said how you feel and feel how you say it. Give some more of your intelligence ... Hypocrite
              Report Abuse
              • Author by congero6189599 (June 07, 2010 3:04 pm ET)
                8  
                Pathetic,booring and embarassing seeing you flail away this way so I'll just leave you alone.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Floyd (June 07, 2010 3:06 pm ET)
                    9
                  please, put the mirror down, you're embarassing yourself.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by NiceguyEddie (June 07, 2010 3:29 pm ET)
                    8 1
                    "I know you are, but what am I."

                    Really???

                    That's the BEST you can do?

                    Were you BORN this pathetic, or did you have to WORK AT IT?

                    You're like a mirror-image, conservative version, of Mike Stivik. To then borrow a page from Archie: YOU'RE A MEAT-HEAD! DEAD, FROM THE NECK UP!

                    --------------------------------------------
                    Enthusiasm is no replacement for talent, my friend.

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Floyd (June 07, 2010 3:59 pm ET)
                        11
                      It sure sounded better than your 'I was joking' reply to your statement that you fully support all gays except the ones who don't agree with what I tell them to agree with'. Ah ha ha ha ha

                      Yeah, your enthusiam is certainly better than your talent.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by NiceguyEddie (June 07, 2010 4:24 pm ET)
                        8 1
                        Thank you. I am rather enthusiastic, aren't I?

                        BTW... You missed the point AGAIN! (Are you being stupid on purpose or were your just born that way?) I'm not "for denying their rights" simply becasue they disagree with me, fool. To the extent that I'd be for denying their rights it would be becuase they VOTED for their RIGHTS TO BE DENIED!

                        There's a difference. And as a matter of principle, I STILL support gays rights, even though they'd benefit a dipstick like Liz Cheney, who disagrees with me. That's what being principled means!

                        And while this will probably be lost of you, there is no hypocrisy in wishing that someone get exactly what they've been asking for!

                        ---------------------------------
                        But keep trying to sound clever. It makes good comedy for everyone who can tell the difference.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by mescal (June 07, 2010 9:24 pm ET)
                          8  
                          Unfortunately, BOTH of you have Liz Cheney confused with her famously gay sister Mary Cheney. Liz is married to Phillip J. Perry and, unfortunately, appears to be a practicing heterosexual.

                          I say unfortunately because Liz Cheney is an active breeder, and has spawned another generation of Cheneys.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by achrispage6992 (June 08, 2010 7:26 am ET)
                            2 1
                            Those two argued from an uninformed position while they hurled baseless personal insults at each other. When you point out their ignorance, it becomes eerily quite. Too funny.
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by NiceguyEddie (June 08, 2010 8:32 am ET)
                              3 2
                              @mescal: LOL - You are correct, I guess I DID have her mixed up with Mary Cheney. My bad.

                              @achrispage: Give a guy a chance, huh? LOL This isn't my ONLY past-time you know! :)

                              Regarding how Floyd and I were going at it just now... if you look at the nature of Floyd's [baseless personal insult] disagreement with me - alleged hypocrisy over gay-rights - I can still stand by almost all of what followed.

                              OK, so it obviously it doesn't apply to Liz Cheney, and I'll have to admit that I have no idea how Mary Cheney votes, so posibly not to her either... BUT: I DO stand 100% behind gay rights / equality / etc... and in doing so I still say I'm entitled to vent a little at any gay republicans (and I know a couple personally, so [whoever] Cheney would hardly have been the only one) without being called a hypocrite by the likes of Floyd.

                              I do think you go a bit far to call it "IGNORANCE." It was a MISTAKE. It happens. [sarcasm] I know y'all think I'm perfect, but I'm not. ;) [/sarcasm] But most of that wasn't about Liz/Mary Cheney specifically, and I don't see any shortage of examples in the world that validate the general point I was arguing.

                              --------------------------------------
                              I've learned that women like a man who can admit when he's wrong... and it turns out I'm wrong a LOT! LOL
                              Report Abuse
                              • Author by Floyd (June 08, 2010 9:21 am ET)
                                1 4
                                eddie-- I DO stand 100% behind gay rights / equality / etc... and in doing so I still say I'm entitled to vent a little at any gay republicans without being called a hypocrite by the likes of Floyd.

                                Who do you want to be called a hypocrite by? Eddie you fail to realize YOU made the statement, then YOU backed away from it after YOU were told of YOUR hypocrisy. There was no "point" of voting for gay rights. You didn't even mention "gay rights". Everyone can see what you wrote.

                                eddie-- Regarding how Floyd and I were going at it just now... if you look at the nature of Floyd's [baseless personal insult] disagreement with me - alleged hypocrisy over gay-rights - I can still stand by almost all of what followed.

                                Hey eddie. When you make wild claims like that it would be wise to actually read what was said. The only name I called you was "liberal" and "hypocrite". If you check your first post you called people you don't even know "stupid fools". Yet, somehow you equate being called liberal and hypocrite to being a "baseless personal insult".

                                You know a funny thing about this is that YOU took this thread off topic, yet I get blamed for doing it.

                                So, the moral of the story is; if you don't want to be called a hypocrite ... stop being one!
                                Second moral; if you're going to be a hypocrite expect to be called one and don't whine when it happens.
                                Report Abuse
                                • Author by NiceguyEddie (June 08, 2010 9:52 am ET)
                                  3  
                                  A few points:

                                  @Everyone:
                                  1) Floyd did not take this thread OT, OK? I did in response to Irony's question. And I did so mistakenly because I got Liz and Mary Cheney mixed up. (Sue me.)

                                  There. Are you happy now, Floyd?

                                  @Floyd:
                                  2) Other than "Liberbal" (admitted, with pride) and "Hypocrite" (see below) you also called me a "sheeple." Which is both poor grammar (plural, where I'm singular) and a term inherently descriptive of philisophical conservatism, and inherently contrary to philisophical liberalism.

                                  3) You apparently don't know the meaning of the word "hypocrisy." Hypocrisy is the act of condemning something that you engage in. (See Reverend Haggard, or Larry Craig, for examples.) It's judging another for a vice you possess. Where I do this? Clearly I didn't. I didn't condemn anyone exepct STUPID PEOPLE who vote against their own social and economic interests. If you can show me doing that (voting agianst my own interests)? If you can PROVE that I've done that? (Not just go with the lame-@$$, "Well, you voted for a democrat" nonsense) Then fine: I'm a hypocrite. Good luck.

                                  3) As for "who I'd like to be called a hypocrite by?" Well, no one, obviously. To me there's no worse sin than hypocrisy. But I only really accept criticism from people I RESPECT. And there are many conservative (as well as liberal) posters here who's words and ideas and criticisms I take VERY SERIOUSLY. You are not even close to being one of them. How about this, for a start: I'll accept being called a hyopcrite by someone who knows the meaning of the word!

                                  4) As for me "backing away" from what I wrote? How's that exactly? I clearly said "I stand by it" and I still do! And you've done little, other than to launch misguided attacks and say "I disagree with you" in an increasingly colorful manner, to show any inconsistency in what I've said.

                                  Like you said: It's all there, for all to see - including my admission of mistaking Liz for Mary Cheney, and even assuming responsibility for taking the thread off topic. I'm fine with all that. If anyone would like to point out any substantive inconsistencies in the rest of it, I'd love to here them. (Other than the fact that we're both wasting everyone's time with this pointless verbal brawl, of course!) ;)

                                  --------------------------------------------
                                  Now... Did you have a POINT?
                                  Report Abuse
                          • Author by Floyd (June 08, 2010 8:16 am ET)
                              3
                            mes-- Unfortunately, BOTH of you have Liz Cheney confused with her famously gay sister Mary Cheney.

                            You mean only eddie. He isn't the brightest bulb in the box, but I never said Liz was gay. I merely pointed out eddie's hypocrisy of "supporting all gays 100% except the ones who don't vote the way he wants them to".

                            mes-- Liz Cheney is an active breeder, and has spawned another generation of Cheneys.

                            Yeah, frightening another round of Cheneys will be here for all of you to blame everything on. Maybe one of these will end up president and we'll be able to have some real cover-ups happening. Maybe a couple more oil leaks and maybe throw in some torture.
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by NiceguyEddie (June 08, 2010 10:51 am ET)
                              2  
                              FLOYD: I never said Liz was gay. I merely pointed out eddie's hypocrisy of "supporting all gays 100% except the ones who don't vote the way he wants them to".

                              The idiocy of this statement is self-apparent. For the umpteenth time, I don't care how someone votes, or feels about an issue! To the extent that I wouldn't extend someone their rights (and I WOULD anyway, putz) it is becuase they themselves VOTED AGAINST them getting those very rights! It not about what I want, fool. It's about giving THEM what THEY THEMSELVES ASKED FOR! Duh!

                              But whatever. If you want to go one attcking me, despite the fact that YOU GOT NOTHIN'. Go right ahead. This aregument was beneath me at least three posts ago. I'm done and won't bother replying anymore.

                              --------------------------------------
                              Have fun grandstanding.
                              Report Abuse
                              • Author by NiceguyEddie (June 08, 2010 11:03 am ET)
                                2  
                                I merely pointed out eddie's hypocrisy of "supporting all gays 100% except the ones who don't vote the way he wants them to".

                                One more thing though: Even if I were serious about that, it's STILL wouldn't be "hypocrisy."

                                ---------------------------------
                                Jackass
                                Report Abuse
                                • Author by Floyd (June 08, 2010 9:41 pm ET)
                                    1
                                  Thanks for the continued name-calling after you whined about being called names.
                                  Report Abuse
                                  • Author by Floyd (June 08, 2010 9:44 pm ET)
                                      1
                                    Would that be hypocrisy by your definition? ... you engage in name calling, but you condemn others (me) for doing it?
                                    Report Abuse
                                    • Author by Floyd (June 08, 2010 10:09 pm ET)
                                      1 1
                                      Perhaps this will count as hypocrisy also. How many articles will appear on mmfa about the anti-semite comments made by Helen Thomas? If you're going to judge Beck on his support of an author who is anti-semite, perhaps there should be one or two articles about Helen Thomas's on-going and always presented hatred of Jews? But, considering the source of articles from mmfa, I doubt it.

                                      How do YOU feel about Helen Thomas, eddie? Have you always considered her a fool or idiot or whatever equates your feelings about Beck? If you consider her current actions condemnable, but consider her past actions ok, would that be another example of hypocrisy?

                                      To everyone else... How do you all feel about Helen Thomas? Is she as bad as you have judged Beck to be, since she IS an anti-semite? Does her past and continued hatred of Jews convince you she is a vile person, like you do Beck?

                                      One last thing. Eddie, I'm really not concerned whether you respect me or not. But, I do appreciate your clarification of those points. Obviously, I'm not commenting on this site to gain respect. I do find great joy in pointing out continued miss-information brought by this site and the hypocrisy of it.
                                      Report Abuse
                                      • Author by NiceguyEddie (June 09, 2010 3:15 pm ET)
                                           
                                        RE Helen Thomas. She RETIRED, IN DISGRACE over those remarks. So... WHERE'S the hypocrisy? WHy would MMFA have to call her out, when she's ALREADY TAKEN RESPONSIBILITY FOR IT?!

                                        I'd say the hypocrisyis on the part of all her critics who constantly whine about the "jews in hollywood" the "jews on wall street" the "jews on the supreme court" the "jews in the ACLU" the "jews who vote democrat" (etc...) but then turn around and crucify someone for making a few remarks about ISRAEL. I'd say the hypcrisy lies with all these conservtaives who seem to love Isreal but hate Jews!

                                        ------------------------------------
                                        IMHO
                                        Report Abuse
                                  • Author by NiceguyEddie (June 09, 2010 1:02 pm ET)
                                       
                                    I did no such thing. You have me confused with another poster. I could care less about the name-calling. The fact is that you had no evidence of HYPOCRISY. Once again you completely miss the point! Disagree with the specific name you called me (which has an official definition that you are apparenlty unaware of) is not condeming the act of name calling...

                                    ----------------------------------------
                                    ...You stupid f---nut!
                                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by sambo (June 08, 2010 5:53 pm ET)
                    2  
                    Floyd, you really are a nimrod,aren't you?
                    Report Abuse
              • Author by NiceguyEddie (June 07, 2010 3:15 pm ET)
                8 1
                Where exactly is my "liberal theology" under attack? From YOU? Puh-lease. Spitballs at battleships, my friend, spitballs at battleships. And besides...

                You wouldn't know the "liberal theology" if it beat you death and dragged you to hell.

                Because... there IS no such thing. "Theology" can only describe conservtaism. "Dogma" is an inherently conservtaive concept. "Sheeple" therefore, can only be conservative. It is inherent to conservtaism to be dogmatic, to defend the status quo. To accept what you're told and act accordingly. It is iherent to liberals to question and dissent. That's why the Republicans have party unity (and little else) working for them, while the Democrats can't seem to organize a barbecue even when eveeyone wants Hamburgers, medium-well.

                There ARE no liberal sheep, SFB, because to BE liberal, you have to question things. You have to SEEK OUT EVIDENCE and go where the EVIDENCE TAKES YOU. And as soon as you START questioning the established dogma, you have left the path of CONSERVATISM... Though you've joined the path of WISDOM, liberally-biassed though it may be.

                And seeing as how YOU would deny marriage rights to ALL gays, while I'd only (in own basest day-dreaming vice) deny them to the gays that VOTED FOR THE PARTY THAT WANTED TO DENY THEM THOSE RIGHTS, where the hell do you get off criticizing me? The only part of the gay community who wouldn't agree with my point are those very people whom I'm criticizing! (And in disagreeing with me on that point, they would become the only hypocrties in this situation!)

                The only sheep here is YOU. You are blinded by your adherence to what the RIGHT says is right and what the RIGHT says is "liberal," indefensible as both of those beliefs may be. My support of gay and minority rights is well established enough that I've EARNED the rigth to crack a joke from time to time about it. YOU and YOUR ILK have too long a history of bigoted remarks and regressive policies to warrant being given the benefit of the doubt.

                But these points are always lost of you people. You're wasting my time. The liberals know what I'm talking about and have heard it all before, while I could throw you into the sun and you'd still fail to see the light.

                --------------------------------------------------
                Still... it is mildly amusing to see how much abuse you'll take and keep coming back for more. If you'd prefer and objective debate, try making a point.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by tinka (June 07, 2010 3:37 pm ET)
                8  
                I think I'll wander over the conservative site see if I can stir up a little hatred for the left!

                It makes them feel like they are doing something other that picking their butts!
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Floyd (June 07, 2010 4:21 pm ET)
                    8
                  tinka-- see if I can stir up a little hatred for the left!

                  That shouldn't be hard to do. At least they pick their own butts.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by NiceguyEddie (June 07, 2010 4:27 pm ET)
                    6 1
                    Unintentional hilarity, thy name is Floyd.

                    -----------------------------
                    LOL
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Floyd (June 08, 2010 9:38 am ET)
                      1 3
                      not unintentional. What was it you called me earlier because I "didn't get" your humor? Oh, yeah a pea-brain. Of course that was just before you whined about baseless personal insults I threw at you.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by NiceguyEddie (June 08, 2010 11:00 am ET)
                        2 1
                        No, I called you "pee-brain." That particular spelling was intentional, becuase if I urinated in your ear, there's no doubt that your skull would have ample capacity to recieve it.

                        And just as it wasn't YOU who took the thread of-topic, it wasn't ME who "whined" about the "personal attacks." I'd NEVER do that, I'm having WAAAY too much fun with them!

                        (You see... THAT would be hypocrisy. And once again I don't qualify!)

                        Glad to know that "pick their own butts" was INTENTIONAL humor. Glad we could clear that up. I'll leave the verdict on that flourish of wit to the court of public opiinion.

                        I'm done with you.

                        -----------------------------------
                        I would shake your hand for a match well-played, but... not after you've "picked your own butt!"
                        Report Abuse
                  • Author by coldteablues19577325 (June 07, 2010 4:43 pm ET)
                    6  
                    "At least they pick their own butts." --Floyd

                    Ewwwwwwwwwwww!!
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by mescal (June 07, 2010 9:26 pm ET)
                      5  
                      And then, like the monkeys that they emulate in so many other ways, the wingnuts angrily fling their own pickings at progressives.
                      Report Abuse
            • Author by coldteablues19577325 (June 07, 2010 4:38 pm ET)
              5  
              "It was a satirical point" --Eddie

              You forgot the little winkie thingie. ;-)
              Report Abuse
              • Author by NiceguyEddie (June 08, 2010 11:06 am ET)
                2  
                And may I be condemned to hell for it!

                (Also... there's probably a "little winkie" joke in there somewhere, but I'll let Floyd take that one.)

                ---------------------------------------------
                LOL
                Report Abuse
          • Author by bintx (June 07, 2010 4:30 pm ET)
            5  
            Liz Cheney isn't homosexual. Her sister Mary is.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by poproxx77 (June 07, 2010 7:16 pm ET)
          6
        Looks like the rule of law is under attack by progressives and Huffington again. The only link there is of any fraud by Haliburton is through the stock holdings Haliburton had in KBR. Legally there is absolutely no link. Cheney is right. Huffington is such a poser.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by The_Cat (June 07, 2010 9:02 pm ET)
          5  
          Halliburton and KBR plead guilty.

          DOD audit finds KBR/Halliburton defrauded government.

          More Iraq fraud by KBR and Halliburton.

          Hey, and that's just a sampling of KBR and Halliburton's wrongdoing. That's not even counting the American servicemen who were electrocuted by shoddy contractor work performed by KBR and Halliburton. That's not even to mention the billions that went missing in Iraq. So, you're absolutely wrong, poproxx77. Liz Cheney is also wrong, but this is hardly surprising. She lies just as well as her dad does. She should hug him while she can, because he is a war criminal who tortured people to death, and deserves federal prison time at the very least. By the way, do you suppose she knows she only exists so her daddy didn't have to go off to war?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Floyd (June 08, 2010 8:22 am ET)
            1 3
            the-- because he is a war criminal who tortured people to death

            And of course, you have proof of that? Silly me, I should know better than to ask a liberal for proof. The usual procedure is that one of you post a flat out lie, then a conservative has to bring proof that it isn't a lie. Do you have proof of even one person he "tortured to death" or do you have proof of all the "people" he "tortured to death".

            Cat brings another typical liberal post; lies, no facts, no proof and blaming others.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by The_Cat (June 08, 2010 9:48 am ET)
              3  
              So, first poproxx77 claims no wrongdoing ever by Halliburton, and I have to (quite easily) refute that bit of nonsense. Then, Floyd comes along, and has the temerity to claim I posted no facts, when in reality all three links were filled with facts rebutting the claim poproxx77 so foolishly made. Then Floyd starts another argument, this time about people dying in U.S. custody.

              Guess what, Floyd. I'm right. You're wrong. Again.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by sambo (June 08, 2010 6:09 pm ET)
                1  
                The-Cat, but,but,Floyd is a nimrod
                Report Abuse
              • Author by poproxx77 (June 08, 2010 7:04 pm ET)
                  1
                That doesn't prove Cheney tortured anyone to death. As a matter of fact some of those people have died under Obama's administration. Does that mean he, or Joe Biden are torturing people to death? Get a grip.

                I never claimed any wrongdoing EVER by Haliburton. you have this nasty habit of putting words into other peoples mouths. Nasty.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by The_Cat (June 08, 2010 7:25 pm ET)
                  1  
                  You said Liz Cheney was right, did you not? Liz Cheney said there was no Halliburton wrong-doing. Liz was absolutely wrong, and Arianna Huffington was actually selling the truth of the scope of their wrong-doing short. You were wrong to say that Liz Cheney was right, poproxx77, as I pointed out.

                  And, putting words into other people's mouths, or pretending to know what other people really meant regardless of what they actually say comes from the Faux Con bag of tricks, which consist primarily of logical fallacies. Floyd is practically a case study in this.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by poproxx77 (June 09, 2010 11:18 am ET)
                       
                    Read the interview they are talking about Iraq and the Deep Water horizon well. They are talking about defrauding the American government of millions of dollars. The article you posted is talking about paying off the Nigerian government, which was done by KBR.

                    You are so delusional it makes me sick. You make up thing where and when you want to fulfill your own little fantasies.
                    Report Abuse
                • Author by The_Cat (June 08, 2010 7:28 pm ET)
                  1  
                  That doesn't prove Cheney tortured anyone to death.

                  Got two words for you, poproxx77: John Yoo.


                  Hey, Dick Cheney? You are a cowardly bed wetting little girl. Continue to hide out in your 'undisclosed location'.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by Floyd (June 08, 2010 11:12 pm ET)
                    1 1
                    Please explain what you are talking about. Cheney hasn't tortured anyone to death. You have no proof, and you'll never find any. Your own opinion is all you got.

                    And, nothing was said about the people who died while Obama and Biden tortured them. Are you saying liberal torture is acceptable, but republican torture is not? I suspect you will ignore those deaths as they aren't qualified as "tortured deaths" since Cheney wasn't involved, right?
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by poproxx77 (June 09, 2010 11:22 am ET)
                       
                    Whats you're point? John Yoo never implicated the president or VP in torture. What he did do is interpret the law, and treaties.
                    Report Abuse
          • Author by poproxx77 (June 08, 2010 7:01 pm ET)
              1
            The first article is talking about KBR bribing Nigerian Government officials. It doesn't say anything about Iraq.

            The other 2, well i'm not going to read 200+ pages trying to find what you are pointing to. Please tell me the page number/s.

            Report Abuse
    • Author by Dradeeus (June 06, 2010 8:24 pm ET)
      12 1
      ACORN, ACORN! LOOK BACK AT ACORN! Do NOT apply the same standards to corporations as political organizations!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by sambo (June 06, 2010 8:32 pm ET)
      9  
      Why wouldn't she rush to defend them? They ARE all alike
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Porkeater (June 06, 2010 8:50 pm ET)
      10  
      Obviously Liz Cheney would stand up for Halliburton; her patrimony and her children's is involved. I believe - and hope - it will choke her.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by usp (June 06, 2010 9:45 pm ET)
        8  
        it paid for her school.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by IRONY 101 (June 06, 2010 10:01 pm ET)
          10  
          Halliburton made her father a very, very wealthy man...by normal standards.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by blk-in-alabam (June 07, 2010 8:34 am ET)
            9 1
            Halliburton has paid for the fat on her butt ever since she has been here.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by GreenLantern (June 07, 2010 9:05 am ET)
              9  
              No need to criticize her physically. The poison she spouts on a regular basis is proof enough what a sell-out corporate monster-shill she is.
              Report Abuse
    • Author by thaneb (June 06, 2010 10:42 pm ET)
      12  
      As of 2005, 12 military personnel in Iraq had been electrocuted in the showers because of shoddy work overseen by KBR, then a H subsidary. 12 lives lost for naught, small in the scheme of things, but emblematic of Ms. Cheney's vaunted Halliburton. She has to say these things to convince herself so that she can sleep at night IMO.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by sambo (June 07, 2010 7:19 am ET)
        9  
        I certainly hope Dick doesn't die before we can get him in jail,ha,
        I doubt he'll ever go to jail,but he should
        Report Abuse
      • Author by jediknight65 (June 07, 2010 9:17 am ET)
        8  
        and don't forget the gang rape they covered up when KBR was a halliburton subsidary.

        hmmmmm. ya know i just had a thought........here is a well known case of a woman being gang raped and it being covered up and republicans and everyone on the right rushs to defend haliburton, and not the victum......hmmm. hypocracy......its so sweet in the morning
        Report Abuse
        • Author by dogbreath (June 07, 2010 9:34 am ET)
          7  
          Just makes you sick, doesn't it?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by jediknight65 (June 07, 2010 9:44 am ET)
            7 1
            me yes......floyd and the rest of the trolls no.....not in the least
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Floyd (June 08, 2010 8:37 am ET)
              2 1
              Why you bringing me into this? I'm not the one claiming some wild government conspiracy. Did Obama ever find out who was responsible for that giant conspiracy you keep mentioning? What ever happened to the guy who "admitted" he raped her? Isn't a confession allowed in court? And the rape kit that was found 2 years later (without notes), doesn't DNA stay intact for years?

              Hey, jedi, time for you to back up your wild claims with some facts! Got any?
              Report Abuse
      • Author by Floyd (June 07, 2010 2:23 pm ET)
          6
        Let's make sure Obama is not held accountable for Bush tactics of torture used on prisoners (like here). How you gonna blame Bush for this one? This should be interesting.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by raddave43 (June 07, 2010 4:45 pm ET)
          5  
          Because the report is talking about something that happened during the Bush years?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Floyd (June 08, 2010 8:52 am ET)
              1
            Sorry, is this one better? How about this one or this one.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Johaely (June 08, 2010 8:22 pm ET)
              1  
              Remember all the screaming that arose over the prospect of closing guantanamo?
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Floyd (June 08, 2010 11:16 pm ET)
                  1
                What does that have to do with Obama torturing prisoners? Is guantanimo closed yet? Hmmm, I guess torture isn't so bad after all. Well, not to you liberals who don't complain about torture that Obama and Biden do to prisoners. Kind of like how the daily death count has mysteriously disappeared from the media reports of the ongoing war. Go figure, hypocrisy like that happens all the time, doesn't it?
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Johaely (June 08, 2010 11:33 pm ET)
                  1  
                  you with your paranoid "the media loves obama" theories. But what does it have to do? well Obama even signed an order to close gitmo and conservatives where screaming about how we were being endangered, so obama just quit trying.

                  And suddenly you care about the death count when "conservatives" screamed about the media even mentioning the war in a negative manner.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by Floyd (June 09, 2010 8:29 am ET)
                       
                    joh-- And suddenly you care about the death count when "conservatives" screamed about the media even mentioning the war in a negative manner.

                    Yes. I'm curious about the hypocrisy of the left-wing media (and left-wingers in general) who had so many faux tears for those dying in Iraq, but now they seemed to have stopped crying ... even thought the deaths continue. If they weren't faux tears, then the publicized count would continue.
                    Report Abuse
    • Author by yankeefan19252745 (June 06, 2010 10:51 pm ET)
      9  
      Dear Sirs,
      Halliburton has, as one of its headquarters, Balikpapan, Borneo.
      During WW2, in Project Oboe, that was a target because of its oil.
      American servicemen died to obtain that objective.
      Is that called blood money?
      Clifford Spencer
      Report Abuse
    • Author by trelan1701 (June 06, 2010 11:21 pm ET)
      9  
      Wait. What? Since when does having a relationship to the facts have anything to do with Liz's world?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by timesthree (June 07, 2010 2:24 am ET)
        7  
        If you keep saying something, doesn't it become true?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by MiniTru (June 07, 2010 7:30 am ET)
          7  
          Yes. I keep telling myself I'm handsome, and damned if it isn't true.

          Either that or I need my eyeglass prescription updated...
          Report Abuse
        • Author by Floyd (June 07, 2010 8:31 am ET)
          2 18
          time-- If you keep saying something, doesn't it become true?

          That is certainly true for mmfa and the anti-conservative articles they keep coming out with. The liberal posters, on this site, sure fall for that tactic. Just like a bunch of sheeple would. Oh, wait, you are sheeple.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by bintx (June 07, 2010 8:39 am ET)
            10 3
            Floyd, the people who are spoken of on MMFA are NOT conservatives . . . they do NOT represent conservative values or thought. The fact that you believe they do indicates that YOU are one of the sheeple. Inform yourself and quit calling yourself a "conservative." You Fox/hate talk radio groupies are an EMBARRASSMENT to real conservatives.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by jediknight65 (June 07, 2010 9:18 am ET)
            8  
            so you are ok with haliburton being charged with covering up a gang rape?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by dogbreath (June 07, 2010 9:35 am ET)
              8  
              Or receiving no-bid contracts for work that they flagrantly overcharged the US taxpayers for?
              Report Abuse
            • Author by Floyd (June 07, 2010 9:53 am ET)
                15
              Do you mean this story? Have you got any convictions, yet? Do you support "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law" justice system?

              What has Obama done to un-cover, the alleged crime? Or do you support his continued covering up of that alleged crime?
              Report Abuse
              • Author by jediknight65 (June 07, 2010 10:01 am ET)
                8  
                hard to get a conviction when the rape kit and evidence just happens to disappear after being handed over to haliburton.

                are you taking the "she was asking for it" tack? or the "it was her fault for dressing like she did" tack?

                wanna blame the victim some more?

                oh so now your wanting to follow the innocent until proven guilty line. so you want that due process when it applies to corporations. but when it appiles to anyone else. forget them. they are guilty no matter what.

                nice hypocracy
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Floyd (June 07, 2010 11:24 am ET)
                    12
                  jed-- are you taking the "she was asking for it" tack? or the "it was her fault for dressing like she did" tack?

                  No, I am asking if there was a conviction? Was there? Can I now refer to ALL who are accused of a crime as being guilty of a crime? I'm simply asking a question about a charge of a conspiracy that you think is happening at the hands of a government and private company. And, since the article blames the US government as being a part of this alleged cover-up, then the current US president must be a part of it. If not, then the current POTUS should bring all the correct information to light. Has that been done?
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by dkylep (June 07, 2010 12:01 pm ET)
                    12  
                    There was no conviction because KBR TOOK THE EVIDENCE FROM THE DOCTOR THAT EXAMINED HER! What kind of monster are you anyway?!?! The assailant that she named actually admitted the morning after that he had unprotected sex with her! He admitted it for Christ's sake! She couldn't identify the other rapists because she was drugged unconscious.

                    "When she awoke the next morning still affected by the drug, she found her body naked and severely bruised, with lacerations to her vagina and anus, blood running down her leg, her breast implants ruptured, and her pectoral muscles torn – which would later require reconstructive surgery. Upon walking to the rest room, she passed out again." Jones' account was confirmed by U.S. Army physician Jodi Schultz. Schultz gave the rape kit she used to gather evidence from Jones to KBR/Halliburton security forces, after which the rape kit disappeared. It was recovered two years later, but missing crucial photographs and notes.

                    And you think this is okay?!?! You think that this amounts to a 'well, no convictions so no crime was committed." What kind of sick twisted screwheaded bastard are you?!

                    You're beyond despicable. There aren't any words to describe sick people like you. You're even willing to try and politicize this woman's gang-rape and subsequent cover-up and blame it on Obama. How dare you have such a lack of humanity and empathy, and how dare you try to equate what was done (or not done) under the past administration with this poor woman to the current administration.
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by jediknight65 (June 07, 2010 12:01 pm ET)
                    11  
                    kinda hard when KBR took the rape kit and all the evidence collected at the time and lo and behold....it hasn't been seen since.

                    and if you wanna blame the current president for this one....well how about this.....why not blame the last one as well. or the last vice president who was the head of KBR's parent company. are you gonna call for them to be held to acct too?

                    i didn't bring the government into this part....you did. i only mentioned haliburton and KBR. no one else. not the current president or the previous one. if you want obama brought in on this so bad. why aren't you screaming for dick cheney's head. why not bush. because they were the ones at the wheel at the time. so you should be wanting to go after them first and foremost.

                    but like all good trolls you wont. they are sacrosanct to you. so either man up and call for their questioning first or shut up.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Floyd (June 07, 2010 12:21 pm ET)
                        11
                      jed-- and if you wanna blame the current president for this one....well how about this.....why not blame the last one as well. or the last vice president who was the head of KBR's parent company. are you gonna call for them to be held to acct too?

                      Yes, all should be held accountable. Does that surprise you? If YOU are going to claim a massive cover-up, bring it. Don't forget to have ALL accountable to be questioned. Where is the current investigation into this 'alleged' cover-up? None going on? Hmmm.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by jediknight65 (June 07, 2010 12:38 pm ET)
                        9  
                        are u gonna stroll on down to KBR and demand they hand over the evidence that they disappeard? do that first them ill agree with you.
                        Report Abuse
                      • Author by jediknight65 (June 07, 2010 12:42 pm ET)
                        8  
                        see if u hadn't proved yourself to be such a corporate shill. then the sequence of events should be as follows.

                        1. you go to haliburton and KBR and demand the evidence they have hidden.

                        2. go after president bush and vice pres cheney.

                        3. then, and only then, should president obama be held accountable if anything.

                        but as well all know. you will skip right to go after president obama. and only obama. obama should be held to account if at all, last. so until i see a news story saying that HAliburton and KBR are brought up on criminal charges and bush and dick are held responsible first, you will have not a leg to stand on.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by Floyd (June 07, 2010 1:18 pm ET)
                          1 8
                          So, go after them. I'M not the one claiming some giant conspiracy, YOU are. Why do I have to prove something YOU claim as FACT?
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by congero6189599 (June 07, 2010 1:25 pm ET)
                            4 1
                            The comedy...no sickness from you never ceases to amaze.
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by Floyd (June 07, 2010 1:28 pm ET)
                                5
                              Ok, there is a giant conspiracy that haliburton caused millions of children to miss school. YOU have to prove that isn't true AND bring evidence to support your proof. There's your liberal mind-set for you!
                              Report Abuse
                              • Author by congero6189599 (June 07, 2010 1:30 pm ET)
                                4  
                                ZZzzzzzzzzzzzz!!!
                                Report Abuse
                                • Author by Floyd (June 07, 2010 2:00 pm ET)
                                    5
                                  That's right, you're buzzed. And have no reasoning for your compatriots THEORIES.
                                  Report Abuse
                                  • Author by congero6189599 (June 07, 2010 2:21 pm ET)
                                    4 1
                                    No the zzzzzzzz's was because your're a boor.
                                    Report Abuse
                                    • Author by mescal (June 07, 2010 9:38 pm ET)
                                      4  
                                      Congero, I din't quite catch that. Did you call Floyd a BOOR or a BOOB?

                                      Or both?

                                      Either one seems appropriate to me.
                                      Report Abuse
                                      • Author by congero6189599 (June 08, 2010 12:59 pm ET)
                                        1  
                                        Well I said boor but I'll accept boob they both apply.
                                        Report Abuse
                              • Author by coldteablues19577325 (June 07, 2010 4:52 pm ET)
                                3  
                                "Ok, there is a giant conspiracy that haliburton caused millions of children to miss school. YOU have to prove that isn't true AND bring evidence to support your proof. There's your liberal mind-set for you!" --Floyd

                                OMG!! This simply makes no sense.
                                Report Abuse
                          • Author by jediknight65 (June 07, 2010 4:38 pm ET)
                            4  
                            i never claimed a conspiracy involving the government covering things up. i said that the companies themselves covered stuff up as noted in the article you cited. and i went to say that if there was a conspiracy involving the government then dick should be the first to go down. you brought the gov. into this becaus eyou wanna bash the president.

                            and i challenged you to go after them, since you are so for the justice of a woman over a corporation. oh wait your not.
                            Report Abuse
                      • Author by congero6189599 (June 07, 2010 1:09 pm ET)
                        4  
                        Merrium/Webster dictionary:
                        womanizer = : to pursue casual sexual relationships with multiple women
                        rape: : unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against the will usually of a female or with a person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent

                        Sounds fairly similar to me. Both include sex, but consent isn't necessary---Floyd

                        This is what this kook posted to me in response to me calling him on equating womanizing to rape.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by Floyd (June 07, 2010 2:09 pm ET)
                          2 6
                          Oh, yeah. You called me on it. I gave you the similarities, now you run like the little girl you are. Just like the guy who keeps using tax tables, but has no reply to Biden's 'irregular' tax payments using HIS source. Keep up the good work. Typical liberal
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by congero6189599 (June 07, 2010 2:20 pm ET)
                            4  
                            Oh now I'am a little girl...hahaha...lol. You gave me the similarities...they both involve sex right? lol. Sex=rape? Whewwee. kook is not a strong enough word for you.
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by Floyd (June 07, 2010 2:28 pm ET)
                                5
                              Oh, I get it, you have absolute proof ALL the women Clinton had sex with did so without any force involved? Or, do I need to prove another of your wild claims for them to be valid?

                              BTW, you might as well use all the other names you liberals have for conservatives, since name-calling is your only hope. You certainly don't know what facts are, or you'd bring some. Keep on name-calling ... it's all you got.
                              Report Abuse
                              • Author by congero6189599 (June 07, 2010 2:34 pm ET)
                                4  
                                If Clinton forced any women to have sex it would be called rape not womanizing. As far as your other drivel I'll consider the source. Kook!
                                Report Abuse
                                • Author by Floyd (June 07, 2010 2:39 pm ET)
                                    5
                                  The source? You mean jediknight65? You're right, consider the source of that drivel. Ah ha hah ha ha
                                  Report Abuse
                                • Author by congero6189599 (June 07, 2010 2:45 pm ET)
                                  5  
                                  Hers a definition for you from Merriam-websters Dictionary you may be familiar with:

                                  Kook: <n> one whose ideas or actions are eccentric,fantastic,or insane: screwball

                                  womanizing=rape-----Floyd

                                  'Nuff' said.

                                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by jediknight65 (June 07, 2010 4:42 pm ET)
                    5  
                    by the way i never said the gov in the person of the president. i said republicans. because they tried to block al frankens ammendment saying that any incidents like this would cut the funding from these companies. you brought the president into this. nice try jackass. chalk u up as a rape supporter because that is what you are
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Floyd (June 07, 2010 4:52 pm ET)
                        5
                      The article you haven't refuted says the government. Not republicans. Nice try
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by jediknight65 (June 07, 2010 10:46 pm ET)
                        4  
                        yeah nice try jackass. i said republicans and you said i said the gov. i didn;/t. keep lying if it makes you sleep easier at night.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by Floyd (June 08, 2010 8:06 am ET)
                            1
                          jedi-- i said republicans and you said i said the gov.

                          Actually, you never said republicans either. Are you trying to climb out of a hole or something, by trying to make excuses?

                          If you want to find out how you ended up being blamed for saying the government was involved, you can go back to your initial statement where you asked if I was ok with haliburton covering up a gang-rape.
                          I didn't know what you were talking about so I googled it and found several aritcles about it. I linked the ABC article, because it was the most "acceptable" site (for you liberals). In that article (the very first sentence) Haliburton and the US Government are blamed for a cover-up of an alleged gang-rape. I asked you if this was the story you were referring to and you did not say 'no, there is a different story'. So, naturally I thought you meant that story. Is there another one I should be googling, so I get my facts straight?

                          Anyhow, you went back and forth about who you wanted to blame and who not to, but you NEVER said either republicans or any of the government. But, since that what was the article was about, the inference was there.

                          Now, you claim you DID say republicans, I was wondering if you could point out where you said that. Otherwise, simply admit you've painted yourself into a corner and you can't figure out how to escape, so you fall back onto the normal liberal practice of calling me names.

                          Point out where I lied! If you can't, then you are simply another hypocritical liberal who does what they are told when they are told to do it. In which case I would expect nothing less from you.
                          Report Abuse
                  • Author by jediknight65 (June 07, 2010 4:42 pm ET)
                    6  
                    by the way i never said the gov in the person of the president. i said republicans. because they tried to block al frankens ammendment saying that any incidents like this would cut the funding from these companies. you brought the president into this. nice try jackass. chalk u up as a rape supporter because that is what you are
                    Report Abuse
              • Author by jediknight65 (June 07, 2010 10:03 am ET)
                6  
                considering that al franken worked to rectify this problem is laudable. and if you remember....why republicans tried and failed to block his amendment. so those YOU support and are hapy to scream due process for. are just fine if some corporation covers up its own crimes.

                and the president had nothing to do with it by the way. kbr and haliburton covered up the crime and they should be the ones being focused on not the president. nice try jackass.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by dkylep (June 07, 2010 10:14 am ET)
                8 1
                In 2005, Jamie Leigh Jones was gang-raped by her co-workers while she was working for Halliburton/KBR in Baghdad. In an apparent attempt to cover up the incident, the company then put her in a shipping container for at least 24 hours without food, water, or a bed, and “warned her that if she left Iraq for medical treatment, she’d be out of a job.” Even more insultingly, the DOJ resisted bringing any criminal charges in the matter. KBR argued that Jones’ employment contract warranted her claims being heard in private arbitration — without jury, judge, public record, or transcript of the proceedings. After 15 months in arbitration, Jones and her lawyers went to court to fight the KBR claims. Yesterday, a court ruled in favor of Jones.” Mother Jones reports:

                Jones argued that the alleged gang rape was not related to her employment and thus, wasn’t covered by the arbitration agreement. Finally, two years later, a federal court has sensibly agreed with her. Tuesday, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2 to 1 ruling, found her alleged injuries were not, in fact, in any way related to her employment and thus, not covered by the contract.

                One of the judges who ruled in her favor, Rhesa Hawkins Barksdale, is a West Point grad, Vietnam vet, and one of the court’s most conservative members, a sign, perhaps, of just how bad the facts are in this case. It’s a big victory, but a bitter one that shows just how insidious mandatory arbitration is. It’s taken Jones three years of litigation just to get to the point where she can finally sue the people who allegedly wronged her. It will be many more years before she has a shot at any real justice.

                “We do not hold that, as a matter of law, sexual-assault allegations can never ‘relate to’ someone’s employment,” wrote the court. “For this action, however, Jones’ allegations do not ‘touch matters’ related to her employment, let alone have a ’significant relationship’ to her employment contract.

                Don't ever post here again Floyd. Never. Unreal that you would claim that there weren't any convictions when the legal chicanery used by KBR reached unparalleled levels to prevent convictions. And in case you were wondering, yes, she can now sue KBR thanks to the court ruling. All on public record too, unlike the arbitration was. Unreal that you would stand up for a company that covered up a gang-rape of one of its employees. What kind of a monster are you?!?

                Of course, KBR has recently (on January 19th) requested that the United States Supreme Court deny her ability to sue her rapists and the company for covering it up. Normally I nicely suggest to people that are uninformed that they educate themselves further about a subject. You I sincerely hope get your ass kicked repeatedly for daring to argue that legal trickery and lobbying equates with 'no criminal charges being brought by the DoJ' (which has been called before Congress to account for their inaction on this open and shut case with mounds of evidence supporting the victim).

                I also sincerely hope that you are banned from posting again on this site. Your 'opinion' is anything but. You're ignorant, uninformed, willing to say things that are demonstrably false and then attempt to defend those errors, and you seem to be a genuinely evil person for supporting KBR in this case (or you're astoundingly ignorant and evil for not caring enough to bother looking up what the facts are in the case in question and yet still willing to defend KBR). What you do isn't 'freedom of speech', it's something totally different; it's a more insidious form of propaganda that seeks to defend the proponents of a certain point of view, rather than defending the truth. YOU and those like you are major reasons why rape victims don't come forward more in society: because they're put through a whole other round of being victimized by bastards like you.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by jediknight65 (June 07, 2010 10:21 am ET)
                  5 1
                  no, he shouldn't be banned. cause otherwise we couldn't make fun of him and show him how much of a blatant hypocrite he is and how he supports torture, rape, the demonizing of anyone who disagrees with him and corruption
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by Floyd (June 07, 2010 2:15 pm ET)
                    7
                  dky-- What kind of a monster are you?!?

                  I guess the kind that doesn't fall for the bunk you do. Let her sue, I hope she wins tons of cash. That doesn't prove the giant conspiracy jedi is claiming there is. If the government is part of that conspiracy, then Obama is the leader of that government and HE can un-conspire it. Has he even attempted? No? Well, there you have it ... he must be part of the giant government conspiracy.

                  What a bunch of whiney little girls you are. Claim conspiracy then run away when your leader could be part of it. Hypocrites
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by congero6189599 (June 07, 2010 2:30 pm ET)
                    6  
                    Flailing,flailing,failing. You get owned from thread to thread. How does it feel always being on the wrong side of things? Bunch of whiny little girls???lol. Roh woo I think that was supposed to be an insult. I'am hurt I don't know if I can bare the strain. lol.
                    Report Abuse
    • Author by diannesrave (June 07, 2010 2:09 am ET)
      7  
      And here is another surprising bit of news. Cheney has taught his girl the same value system as his. Obfuscations, lies, denials.

      I hope AG Holder brings Halliburton and all connected into the criminal action. Maybe if this happens we will finally find out the truth behind Cheney's secret meeting with the oil companies while he was "Vice President."
      Report Abuse
    • Author by ProgLib (June 07, 2010 2:49 am ET)
      7  
      Is she actually complaining about someone else using "talking points"? Wow.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by timesthree (June 07, 2010 4:03 am ET)
        7  
        And insinuating that talking points aren't the truth. She should know.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by temphandle contester61spotters (June 07, 2010 7:15 am ET)
      6  
      Hey Media Matters, no mention of the rape charges? Raw Story has been covering this story. There are at least 20 women who have come forward on this.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by temphandle contester61spotters (June 07, 2010 7:15 am ET)
      3  
      Hey Media Matters, no mention of the rape charges? Raw Story has been covering this story. There are at least 20 women who have come forward on this.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Floyd (June 07, 2010 8:28 am ET)
      1 15
      Here's another liberal comparison that could be made: HBO is a subsidiary of Time Warner, therefore Time Warner is responsible for showing pornography to children.

      Liz is right, what planet does Huffington live on? Huffington is simply a hater, like most of her kind are.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by jediknight65 (June 07, 2010 9:20 am ET)
        9  
        i got another for ya.

        rush limbaugh got married this past weekend. and for the entertainment he paid elton john 1 million dollars. so therefore rush must be ok with john's lifestyle and thus promoting homosexuality
        Report Abuse
      • Author by internet soldier (June 07, 2010 9:56 am ET)
        8  
        Here's another liberal comparison that could be made: HBO is a subsidiary of Time Warner, therefore Time Warner is responsible for showing pornography to children.


        Umm, Yeah, they would be, assuming HBO did that.

        To get you to think rationally about this matter, try to imagine if all these charges were being lobbed at ACORN. Try to imagine that the govt found that ACORN had overcharged the government $452M dollars. Try to imagine that ACORN employees had pleaded to taking kickbacks. Imagine if DOD audits of ACORN had discovered 30-odd instances of fraud. Imagine if ACORN had allegedly tried to cover up a gang rape by its employees.

        What would your reaction to all this? Do you see why people are kind of upset?
        Report Abuse
      • Author by dkylep (June 07, 2010 10:24 am ET)
        9  
        Your comparison fails. Halliburton and KBR engaged in the theft and fraud before they split up into separate entities. Apparently you simply don't read or understand. Based on your support of gang-rapists I'd imagine that such is intentional. What is wrong with you? Really. It seems not to matter to you that a company is doing bad (or in some cases evil) and illegal things, as long as that company is upheld as a good little right-wing company. You lie about facts, you lie about interpretation, you lie about law; or you're supremely ignorant and have no wish to learn about the truth, which makes you mind-staggeringly dense and just as bad as before.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by Floyd (June 07, 2010 2:44 pm ET)
            7
          dky-- You lie about facts, you lie about interpretation, you lie about law

          What lies? Bring proof of your accusations, if you have any. BTW, opinion doesn't count as proof (unless you're a liberal, then opinion is more sound than fact).
          Report Abuse
        • Author by rikntx (June 07, 2010 4:01 pm ET)
          4  
          I have noticed that despite being called on it more than once, not once has "floyd" denied support of gang-rapists. Just sayin'
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Floyd (June 08, 2010 8:08 am ET)
              1
            Off topic, no facts, only opinion ... typical liberal statement
            Report Abuse
      • Author by raddave43 (June 07, 2010 5:00 pm ET)
        4  
        Who teaches wingnuts on how to make comparisons? HBO doesn't show pornography to begin with. Even if it did, it is a "premium channel," meaning someone made a conscious effort to buy it and THEY allowed their children to watch pornography.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by mescal (June 07, 2010 9:43 pm ET)
          4  
          Typical liberal... bringing logic into the debate! ;0)
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Floyd (June 08, 2010 9:01 am ET)
              1
            It's logical for liberals to let their kids watch porn on HBO? You are really messed up.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Johaely (June 08, 2010 8:59 pm ET)
              1  
              A parent is not on the shoulder of his child all the time. If a parent leaves the house and the child finds pornography is it their parents' fault for having something that they bought for themselves.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Floyd (June 08, 2010 11:20 pm ET)
                  1
                Are you offering excuses for letting children watch pornography? Wow, I would never had expected that from a liberal. LOL
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Johaely (June 08, 2010 11:30 pm ET)
                  1  
                  Are you offering excuses for letting children watch pornography? Wow, I would never had expected that from a liberal. LOL


                  No. i'm really tired of your sanctimonious pedancy. If a child finds a porno mag or flips channels and finds playboy, how is this the parents fault? its not like they are leaving drain cleaner in the floor.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by Floyd (June 09, 2010 8:34 am ET)
                       
                    joh-- If a child finds a porno mag or flips channels and finds playboy, how is this the parents fault? its not like they are leaving drain cleaner in the floor.

                    What would be the difference? You mess up his mind or you mess up his body. You act as though the parent has NO control over the child. Well, I guess if the child had liberal parents then you would be correct. Since liberals don't believe in 'personal responsibility', their children would become uncontrollable.

                    joh-- i'm really tired of your sanctimonious pedancy.

                    Here's a quarter
                    Report Abuse
    • Author by jediknight65 (June 07, 2010 9:14 am ET)
      6  
      like a good little child she is following daddy's orders
      Report Abuse
    • Author by The_Cat (June 07, 2010 9:37 am ET)
      6 1
      I am shocked, SHOCKED! to find out a trust fund kid is trying to protect their nest egg! Surely not. Dang that liberal media for being all fact-y and proof-y and daring to hold those responsible to account!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by coldteablues19577325 (June 07, 2010 4:57 pm ET)
      6  
      Look, folks, please, please, PLEASE ignore Floyd. He's just here to stir the pot and hijack the original post. He could care less about what the original point is and responding to him is allowing him to succeed at wrecking any hope of a decent discussion.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by jediknight65 (June 07, 2010 10:49 pm ET)
        4  
        yeah your right
        Report Abuse
      • Author by DellDolly (June 08, 2010 2:43 am ET)
        2 4
        Of course you're right.

        Trying to interact with someone who clearly is NOT interested in participating in a reasoned and fair debate is simply giving HIM the negative attention HE wants.

        That means that Floyd wins, NOT all the folks who think they're winning by mocking him repeatedly!
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Floyd (June 08, 2010 9:04 am ET)
            1
          My God, but your arrogant, scolding, obnoxious, and self-righteous posts on the subject of 'feeding the trolls' are really getting tedious. Nobody here is seeking your permission and/or approval of who and how we may or may not respond to other's posts. You AREN'T the thread monitor here, so would you please just knock it off? We all got your point WEEKS ago, and are simply making our own choices... whether you like it or not. You really need to put your ego in check, and worry a little more about the quality of your OWN posts.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by congero6189599 (June 08, 2010 1:09 pm ET)
            2 1
            You really need to put your ego in check, and worry a little more about the quality of your OWN posts. -----Floyd

            Yes you should floyd.

            Report Abuse
    • Author by Salamandastron (June 08, 2010 7:29 am ET)
      2  
      Poor, poor Liz, trying so hard to defend her Daddy from all those evil liberal facts.
      Report Abuse