 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo
|
|
|
|||||||
|
BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo |
Share Thread
|
||||||
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo From: DougR Date: 20 Jan 02 - 02:15 PM Gee Guest, you don't read the things you post yourself! Where I get my news is contained in the message you posted, I believe, in this thread. I don't believe I stated all my news comes from Fox News Network, did I? For all your ranting and raving, you still haven't pointed out anything the Bush administration did wrong relative to Enron. There should be, and I've no doubt there will be, a complete investigation. If the results show they did something wrong, I will be the first to condem them for it. And I will need no prompting from guests. DougR
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo From: GUEST Date: 20 Jan 02 - 05:53 PM But apparently everyone doesn't agree that doing nothing was the right thing to do, especially when you have a look-see over here, DougR: http://cagle.slate.msn.com/news/EnronExtravaganza/1.asp
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo From: Donuel Date: 20 Jan 02 - 07:00 PM NEWS FLASH Less than 24 hours after Secret Service agents wrestled a deranged pretzel to the ground, friends of the accused snack expressed shock at its alleged role in Sunday's attack on the President. Ann Wilkes of the Virginia based Snack Food Association told reporters: "Nobody detected any hints of violence from the 1400 year old snack. Its just a mixture of wheat four, yeast and salt, bathed in sodium hydroxide. I can't believe it would go postal. Sure, it was a bit of a loner, but never this twisted. BR>
Home Security Chief, Tom Ridge will be issuing an all-points bulletin for Mr. Salty and called for a heightened state of alert. The nation is now 220% alert and has informed on all suspicious snacks and in-laws.
Evidence is mounting that Sunday's incident isn't the first time a pretzel has stalked the president. On May 22, a fifth grader who was touring the White House found a pretzel inside the residence and pocketed it. Colin Hansen still has the snack in a plastic bag in his refrigerator but so far the FBI hasn't sought his pretzel for questioning. Democrats are lamenting the fact that Dick Cheney is now just a pretzel away from the presidency.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo From: Donuel Date: 20 Jan 02 - 07:03 PM the TRUTH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo From: Bobert Date: 20 Jan 02 - 07:24 PM Danged, DougR, you're looking a tad worn out. How long you been keeping vigil for Junior here in Catsburg? Have you even slept? Man, I've heard of "true Believers" but I think you deserve a cabinet post, or something fitting one who is so loyal to Mr. Bush. Old Slick Willie could have used a few loyal pit bulls in his corner and he really didn't do anything other than fool around with a chubby intern. You are probably correct that nothing is going to be pinned on Junior but this entire greed thing by his buddies is eventually going to piss off the working class southern voters who have been very important in all national GOP victories. This does not bode well for Junior, especially since he was not elected, but selected by folks his daddy put in the Supreme Court. But you just keep firing, DougR, because I just have this feeling that you were one of those frothing at the mouth Clinton haters so I understand that you have the staying power. Yep, you'll sit at your computer day and night like a dilegent foot soldier just waiting for someone to say anything mean about Junior. Man, take a powder... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo From: DougR Date: 20 Jan 02 - 09:45 PM Well, Bopert, my friend, if you grow tired of reading posts that disagree with your own point of view, I can understand that you become frustrated. Would't it be a bit boring if the only thing you read were posts that agree with you? Maybe not though, I guess. Guest: I'm sure there are those who believe that the government should have done whatever it could to save Enron. T'would be an impossibility to find 100% agreement on anything, I suppose. I do think the majority of the American voters believe (based on what we know now) that the Bush administration did the right thing by doing nothing. If pointing this out to you upsets you ...well learn to live with it. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo From: GUEST Date: 21 Jan 02 - 10:02 AM DougR, Have you got access to secret polling data on American attitudes towards the Enron debacle? Please, share your data. Otherwise, your continued posting just proves how full of the brown sticky substance you truly are when making wholly unsubstantiated claims like the above. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo From: DougR Date: 21 Jan 02 - 12:30 PM Nope, Guest. No secret data. I just listen to the Fox News Network and attend seances where I receive ghostly messages and advice from Dwight D. Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, and Robert Taft. I gain a lot of insight that way. If there's anything in particular you wish me to ask about at the next session, I'd be pleased to pose your question! DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo From: LoopySanchez Date: 22 Jan 02 - 12:04 PM I've dropped out of this discussion to focus on the music for a few days, but here's a few observations: 1. Though it's not on subject, I must take issue with those who use the "Bush didn't win the popular vote" line as some mandate as though half a percentage point means that he's some sort of pretender-in-chief. Guess what? He got a higher percentage than Clinton did in either of his elections! Clinton was elected with 43% and 47%, and when you consider who the conservative nature of the third party candidate was in those elections, it's obvious that a majority of American voters were against Clinton in both elections. But that's all beside the point. The popular vote is meaningless. I've explained why a thousand times before in here, but I'll gladly do it again if someone needs it repeated yet again. 2. Liberals are very quick to use the "Clinton's scandals were about sex, which didn't effect me, so I didn't care about them" argument to justify their collective hissy-fit over the Enron collapse, but they aren't as quick to mention the 900 Republicans' FBI files that somehow ended up in the Clintons' hands, or the fact that Monicagate was more about quid pro quo sexual harassment than anything else (The other interns not providing hummers weren't given $80K/year jobs at Revlon). (I suppose that didn't effect them either, since they aren't Republicans or interns...) Liberals also aren't too quick to mention any facts about how Bush did anything to help out Enron. That doesn't stop them from trying, though--Take for example this observation from Neal Boortz's site, www.boortz.com: THE LEFT-WING RAG "THE NATION" ACCIDENTLY SHOWS ITS TRUE COLORS A bedwetter named Matt Bivens wrote a story last Friday for The Nation's website. He was desperate to achieve the leftist dream of directly tying George W. Bush to the Enron scandal (oh how the Dems keep trying). Initially, he wrote the following: "When George W. Bush co-owned the Houston Astros and construction began on a new stadium, Kenneth Lay agreed to spend $100 million over thirty years for rights to name the park after Enron." Houston, we have a problem. Bush was co-owner of the Texas Rangers, not the Astros. Oops. When the Wall Street Journal pointed that fact out on their Opinion Journal site, The Nation changed their story. This was the revision. "When George W. Bush co-owned the Texas Rangers and construction began on a new stadium, Kenneth Lay agreed to spend $100 million over thirty years for rights to name the park after Enron." Houston, we still have a problem. The Texas Rangers have nothing to do with Houston or with Enron Field. That's where the Houston Astros play, not the Rangers. The Texas Rangers' stadium has no corporate sponsor. It's just called "The Ballpark at Arlington." Oh, and another thing...Bush sold his share of the team a year before Enron made the deal with the Astros. The Bivens unsuccessful hack-job is now nowhere to be found on the site. As John Adams said, facts are stubborn things.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo From: GUEST Date: 22 Jan 02 - 12:19 PM Hey Loopy-- To attempt to argue that Bush was legitimately selected to serve as president because he got a larger percentage of the vote than Clinton or any other president is wholly irrational. His legitmacy as president will always be a large grey area because of the circumstances of this specific election in particular. As has been noted, this is not the only time a president was installed in office even when he lost the popular vote. Which, as has also been mentioned, lends a lot of credence to arguments to end the electoral college system. You are also missing totally the fact that none of us are defending Democrats by discussing the Enron scandal. In fact, we have gone to great lengths to show it is both parties. Its just your fox guarding the hen house for now. There seems to be one consensus only in this thread, and that is both parties are to blame for the current sad state of governance in this country. Only you and DougR are defending a single party--yours. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo From: DougR Date: 22 Jan 02 - 12:23 PM Loopy: will you never learn? You insist on continuing to confuse these folks with facts! It's much more creative to make up your own facts don't you think? It's kind of like songwriting, I suppose. :>) DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo From: GUEST Date: 22 Jan 02 - 12:31 PM And where did you say your facts were DougR? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo From: DougR Date: 22 Jan 02 - 12:38 PM Look up a three or four posts, Guest. I admit I have a "special" source. But seriously, just read your daily newspaper. The facts are there. The facts are: the Bush administration has not been linked with any wrong-doing in relation to Enron. Them's the facts, Guest. Sorry you can't see them. If investigations prove that the Republican Party, GWB, or anyone else in the administration did something wrong, they should be punished. No one contributing to this thread has suggested otherwise. If you're going to hang someone for stealing sheep, just make sure they stole them first. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo From: LoopySanchez Date: 24 Jan 02 - 02:56 PM Liberal definition of a 'bipartisan discussion'--98 Democrats attacking a Republican administration, then accusing the two conservatives in the room of "guarding the henhouse" when they dare point out the facts, or the folly of the media's relentless attacks despite the lack of them. On a tangential topic, you know That Daschle can't wait to turn the Enron debacle into the final nail in the coffin of Social Security Privatization, don't you, DougR? Anytime the news media are portraying 401k-investing yuppies as "Victims", there has to be an ulterior motive... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo From: DougR Date: 24 Jan 02 - 06:54 PM Yep, Loopy, you're right about Dashle, and it appears McCain and Feingold are going to get their Campaign Finance Law too, as a result of the Enron mess. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo From: toadfrog Date: 24 Jan 02 - 09:46 PM My! It looked like this was going to be a discussion of Enron, It seems to have degenerated into the usual debate about whether Liberals or Conservatives are Better. Doug, the SEC has a statutory mandate to regulate audiging firms like Arthur Andersen. So failures by auditing firms occur because of inadequate regulation by the SEC. And the President's recent appointee, Mr. Pitt, is grimly determined that inadequate regulation is here to stay. Even the Wall Street Journal editorial page agrees with me on that one. And it is a British understatement to say the WSJ is "conservative" - it is so ultra-right wing that on the few times in the past it seemed to agree with me, I was impelled seriously to reconsider my ideas. It appears that Enron and Arthur Andersen were like joined at the hip. Arthur Andersen provided not only auditing, but also tax-accounting and "consultant" services to Enron, so that it was Enron's largest supplier. Auditors occupied offices at Enron, dressed like Enron employees and were believed to be Enron employees. Enron hired officers from among the Arthur Andersen auditors, and Arthur Anderson, in turn, recruited senior people from Enron. Any fool can plainly see that that kind of wet-dog situation inevitably creates fraud. And the former head of the SEC tried to prohibit conflicts of interest, and senior congresspeople overwhelmed him with threats of legislation to clip the SEC's wings. Thirty Sentators forcefully objected to any attempt to clean up the auditing profession, which is not two surprising, because at least three of the Big Five accounting firms regularly outdid Enron in their campaign contributions. Most of the money goes to Republicans, and it appears that they did most of the intervening. Nonetheless, it was truly a "bipartisan" effort. Aside from Phil Gramm of Texas, whose wife at Enron is now up to her ears in the scandal, the biggest miscreant seems to have been Senator Joe Lieberman of Conntecticut. I was never sure about Lieberman, who seemed a bit sanctimonious. Now I'm sure. He is the sanctimonious sleaze-bag of the year. Finally, the next time I hear about privatizing Social Security, so everyone has to go on the stock market and be victimized by those crooks . . . . |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo From: Bobert Date: 24 Jan 02 - 10:26 PM Yo, Toad, Great post. You've got poor ol' Dougie and the 9 RNC employees who man this thread 24/7 scrambling. They're going, "Hmmmmm? What's the Toadster up to now? Here I was just getting ready to blast one of his own and he goes an' blasts him? Hmmmmmm?" Psssttttt... Yo Doug. BIG HINT HERE: It ain't all about Democrats and Republicans. I know that's real tough to take because of a life time of hating the other fraternity on campus but to a lot of folks your guys ain't that much worse than the other guys. It's time to go beyond the the sibling rivalry of your party and current Democratic Party. Time to step out of the box. To think solutions. To move the only way that mankind has historically moved... forward. Defending crooks will make you old long before your time... (Danged, ol' hillbilly got him in a late January rant... Sorry. I'll go play music fir a while...) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo From: DougR Date: 25 Jan 02 - 12:51 AM Hi Toad! You won't find me defending Enron or Arthur Anderson, Toad. They are the ones the attackers should be attacking, not either of the political parties. I'm about puzzeled by the first sentence in your sixth paragraph. Who intervened? What did "they" do to help Enron? As to social security and the stock market, anyone with any bright at all who knows the history of the stock market knows that it has its ups and its downs. Any young person today who has the opportunity to invest some of his/her funds in the stock market, that would normally go into SS and doesn't, needs to have his/her head examined in my opinion. Take any ten year period and invest $100 per month in a good mutual fund. Take the same amount and give it to Uncle Sam in SS taxes or even in a savings account. I think you would find the person that invested in the market would come out well ahead. You folks rant and rave about the failures of the stock market when it is down. Funny, but we never hear from you when the market is at it's peak, as it was last year. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo From: Hrothgar Date: 25 Jan 02 - 03:38 AM I am a little bit curious about the demand for evidence against the Bush administration. Didn't the Taliban (effectively the government of a sovereign nation, and let's skip the bit about the Northern Alliance people holding the seat in the UN) ask for evidence against Osama bin Laden before handing him over? They had the living daylights bombed out of them for their temerity. On the face of it, George W looks to be about as guilty as Osama - but rememer that neither has had a trial yet. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo From: GUEST Date: 25 Jan 02 - 08:18 AM The problems with Wall Street investment bankers and stock analysts who floated the Internet boom to make billions for their best clients is just as much of the problem as the accounting firms being in bed with the corporations. NBC did a piece on the Bush administration the other night called "The Real West Wing" which showed White House Press Secretary Ari Fleishcher (sp) saying they had again won the spin war by keeping the media focusing the Enron story on business issues, and not on the political issues tying the Bush administration to the company. Also on that program, Cheney said that it was imperative to have secrecy in the "advisory" conversations he held with Enron. Oddly, the day after that story aired (the White House's overnight polling data perhaps?) White House leaks began suggesting that the White House may turn over the records to the "energy policy" meetings held with Enron by Cheney, which the GAO is set to bring a lawsuit against Bush/Cheney to get released. Seems that the political side hasn't even begun to play out. Wonder what all those shredded Enron and Anderson documents had to say about the Bush cabinet, hmmmm? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo From: Bobert Date: 25 Jan 02 - 09:57 AM Yo, Doug, et al, I don't want folks taking money out of the social security sytem irregarless of their rationale. And especially by those those who are so well off that they don't have to worry about living in poverty in their old age. These folks represent management and owners and not the poor shelph who works on their assembly lines making the widgits that keep the managers and owners living high on the hog. No, I don't want to see a social security system that has been raided by rich folks leaving it too crippled to help the working class when their assembly line days are over. Call it a redistribution of wealth if you wish but keep in mind also the fact that if all of a sudden labor just up and quit, the ruling class would be up the creek with no paddle... or canoe for that matter. And don't play that old ruling class fight song about them needing this big tax cut so they can invest in more widget factories to provide more jobs. They have been closing factories and cutting jobs, so that dog won't hunt and it is one big lie that the big boys tell. Some have told it so long, they actually belive it... Go figure. Well, bobert. That polishes off your rany quota for January and February. What are you going to do now. Ahhh, just take a page out of the Rupublican Economics hand book, get out your rant credit card and just say "Charge It". Heck, you can always pay later... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo From: DougR Date: 25 Jan 02 - 12:42 PM Hrothger: I'm still trying to grasp the point of your post. To you, GW looks guilty so we should hang him, I suppose. I didn't see the NBC show you refer to Guest. I note, however, there has been considerable criticism from the mainstream liberal press that Brockow didn't ask "the hard questions" when he had the opportunity. Bobert: It puzzels me why liberals point the finger at conservatives accusing them of "only wanting to keep things the way they are," and how the liberals pride themselves upon being "progressive" thinkers ...yet THEY are the ones that want to keep the SS program plodding along the way it always has. I know of no credible source that predicts anything other than disaster for the program if it continues along the same path that it always has. Too many retirees in future years drawing on the fund, and too little money to cover the cost. 'Tis a mind boggler to me. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo From: toadfrog Date: 25 Jan 02 - 07:30 PM O.k. Doug, as to who intervened, if you really want to know, I'll quote my source directly: "Consider Richard Baker, the Louisiana Republican who chairs a House subcommittee on capital markets, securities and government-sponsored enterprises. [Who has recently bemoaned the scandal.] ... "Yet Mr. Baker was a strong opponent of a standards board proposal, that recently was approved, that requires companies to better disclose their use of derivatives . . . . "When the standards board pressed ahead, Mr. Baker introduced a bill to allow public companies to object to proposed accounting principles in federal court. He described his proposal 'as a legislative remedy to a flaw in the private sector process for developing financial accounting standards.'. . . "The SEC, which oversees the standards board, also has frequently been caught in a cross-fire from Congress, which it has complained makes it harder to impose needed regulations. . . . "Senator Joseph Lieberman . . . opens a hearing today into Enron's collapse. Among the questions he says he is probing: 'Why did Enron's auditors allow the compahy to overstate its profits for four years by over a half a billion dollars, using what now appear to be very questionable accounting practices>' But Mr. Lieberman . . . is a longtime critic of the accounting board, and he has rallied opposition to its proposed rules more than once. Recently, he challenged one to overhaul the accounting for corporate mergers and acquisitions, an issue of importance to the high-tech industry. In the fall of 2000, amid the tight presidential race, Mr. Lieberman joined with a bipartisan group of 13 senators in a letter urging the standards board to postpone consideration of the changes until Congress reconvened in 2001. The letter, among other things, claimed the accounting changes 'will make mergers and acquisitions very difficult for high-technology companies.' In the House, California Reps. Christopher Cox, a Republican, and Calvin Dooley, a Democrat, introduced a bill for a one-year moratorium on the standards-board proposal. The proposal called for new disclosures on mergers and acquisitions. Companies cried foul, complaining the change would reduce their earnings. Under pressure from Congress, the standards board backed off, but still required new accounting that gives investors more information about the true initial costs of acquisitions and how to track the investment over time." [Emphasis added.] Wall Street Journal (1/24/02) at page A20. If you want to know more, read the article. Or read the 20 or so articles that have appeared in the WSJ and the New York Times (and I assume the L.A. Times as well) over the past two weeks Doug, you really, really should read a grown-up newspaper from time to time. One pays for the privilege of having an opinion by making the necessary effort to keep informed. Watching television may be useful in knowing what impression a politician makes in a speech, which seems to be the basis of many people's voting decisions. It won't tell you much about what is happening in the real world. Nor will the Drudge Report. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo From: Hrothgar Date: 26 Jan 02 - 05:42 AM Doug My point is that George was perfectly happy to start a war without producing any hard evidence (the reason being, as I recall, that the nature of the evidence might compromise those who provided it). He had only a lot of circumstantial evidence. George does not come up very well in the face of the circunstantial evidence against him, does he? He's up to his neck in protecting and assisting people who, at best, used inside knowledge to trade on that much vaunted free market, the Stock Exchange. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo From: DougR Date: 26 Jan 02 - 07:01 PM Toad: Thank you for the lecture. I'll bet you really are a nice person when you are not seated at your computer. IF there had been intervention on behalf of Enron, one would not have to SEARCH for stories in any newspaper. It would be in all of them. It would be broadcast on every TV and radio station in the land. And I would bet, were I betting man, that I am every bit as well read as you are. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is Enron dubbyas waterloo From: CarolC Date: 26 Jan 02 - 07:16 PM For Waterloo, the sequel, click here. |