apparently, Rahm doesn’t have to. Where’s the outrage?
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/chi-rahm-emanuel-profit-26-mar26,0,5682373.story
Where’s the outrage?
a crooked Chicago politician in Obama’s cabinet - hardly triggers the alarm for outrage. Its almost expected.
at least Cheney worked for his money
Halliburton
.
I think the great prophet Mopdahl had it right the other day in another thread. We should just take whatever we can get right now because that is what everyone else is doing, lead by those in charge of our country and our largest corporation. The country is being looted, shaken down and it’s every man for himself.
Cheney did actual work for Haliburton. Granted, he didn’t run day-to-day operations but a lot of CEO’s don’t - instead he focused on the bigger picture. During his five years as CEO he dramatically changed the company - not to mention tripling revenue in the first three years (via acquisition).
I guess that facts don’t sound as good as saying “Cheney + Haliburton = bad”, does it?
At least Rahm hasn’t shot anybody yet.
that’s the best argument you can make?
And then he quadrupled Halliburtons revenue AFTER he became VP. Now that takes talent.
What’s even better is that Cheney put his Halliburton stock in a trust while he was VP. If you know anything about trusts then you know that’s a joke. During the time he was VP the “trust” exercised options he had, sold stock at huge profits, and because the stock increased so much pretty much increased his wealth tremendously. Being VP was the most profitable venture Cheney ever did.
Average Joe he is.
You forgot to mention that as part of that agreement any profits made from stock is given to charity.
conveniently, you left out the fact that all of the profits from his Haliburton options went to charity, during and after his tenure as VP.
But, from you, I don’t expect much…
Can’t we just agree that both are lascivious toads in their own right. Let’s see if the Dems have the balls to call out their own, and ride them out on a rail…because the pubs certainly didn’t.
//No I don’t expect the dems to suddenly hold true to their moral compass that stopped working in Mid January of this year.
that’s the best argument you can make?
Nah, I save my best stuff for the paying clients.
Define profits and does the trust get a TAX DEDUCTION for those charitable contributions that can offset the asset value before and after he became VP? Oh the games a good tax guy can play with a trust like Cheney’s.
Can’t we just agree that both are lascivious toads in their own right.
I agree. We would be surprised how many of our “leaders” are lascivious toads.
Wait, that means they are horny toads. Maybe it still applies, but not in this case. Unless they were hookers.
las-civ-i-ous ***–adjective *** 1. inclined to lustfulness; wanton; lewd: *a lascivious, girl-chasing old man. * 2. arousing sexual desire: *lascivious photographs. * 3. indicating sexual interest or expressive of lust or lewdness: *a lascivious gesture. *
That must be how he’s working it! Brilliant.
Nice work if you can get it. Five draft deferments during the 60’s so that he could get his BA and MA in political science. (He supported our involvement in Vietnam, but “I had other priorities in the '60s than military service.”) Started “working” as a congressional intern in 1969, eventually ending up as President Ford’s chief of staff before becoming the campaign manager for President Ford’s failed 1976 election campaign. Member of the House of Representatives from 1979-1989. Secretary of Defense from 1989-1993. Joined the American Enterprise Institute from 1993-1995. CEO of Haliburton from 1995-2000. Vice President for the past eight years. Net worth estimated to be as much as $100 million. Come to think of it, I don’t know of anyone (Democrat, Republican, you name it) who has spent most of their life in Washington who is “poor”. I sure picked the wrong career path.
Other than the obvious partisanship, why would you compare Rahim with Cheney?
If you compared Joe Biden with Cheney I could see a connection since they are/were in the same position.
“I had other priorities in the '60s than military service.”
**
As Sec of Defense during the first Gulf War and VP this go around, Cheney prefers to send others to fight in wars. What a coward.
partisanship? not really. Just like to see situations with high-powered administration folks treated with equal disgust.