well, enron's gone down and lots of employees have not only been laid off, but also lost all the money they had in actions for their pension plans. some have gone from having $300,000 to $1,000, and are being forced to sell their houses and try to survive.

the high execs of enron have been selling their stock for almost a year now, making huge fortunes out of it. andersen, the "auditor", shredded thousands of documents, with enron's help of course, and is now suspected of a plan to hide the losses of the energy giant.

what saddens me most is poor old georgie though. his mother in law lost $8,000 dollars in enron stock. now, thats a shame! he should talk to his old pal from enron, kenneth lay (who btw gave millions for his campaing), and work out something between the 2... but they probably did that a long time ago.

anyways, what are your opinions on this?

[ 01-24-2002: Message edited by: norompanlasolas ]</p>

Er, my opinion is that you are committing the error in logic known as "setting up a straw man." Yes, the President of the United States, the Hon. George W. Bush did accept campaign contributions from Enron. Does that make him their auditor? Nope. Does that make him privy to financial skuduggery of the worst kind? No. Some people seem to think that any stick will do to beat a dog.

Galadria1, unfortunately, the Republican Congress under the last administration practiced a new smear tactic of deliberately demanding Clinton's resignation with every piece of news that implicated relatives or friends of the then-president. It was previously customary to attack a president's political positions; with Clinton, all-out war was declared upon his personal life, as well. I've read one exhaustively researched book that quoted samples from every dead dog that was laid at Clinton's doorstep. It was a carefully orchestrated campaign, costing in the multi-millions of dollars, and with a goal of never letting a day go by without having some new dirt to offer.

Since the Republicans reset the rules of engagement with Clinton, the Democrats feel justified in engaging in a feeding frenzy where Dubbyah is concerned. They're not as well organized and they lack the sheer viciousness of some of the key members of the former cabal (like the previous Republican House Whip, Knute Gingrich), but they're still new at this game. For better or worse, I expect to see an escalation of these tactics when circumstances permit, and whether Dubbyah deserves it, or not. And for all that I think he's a poor president in many respects, I don't think he deserves this.

[ 01-24-2002: Message edited by: fable ]</p>

Enron is an equal opportunity political mistake. Enron made major donations to both Republicans and Democrats.

People from both parties which sit on the committee investigating the Enron disaster accepted donations.

first of all. all i mentioned about bush is his close affinity with mr lay and the insinuation that he probably knew what was going on at enron (a thing i am absolutely sure). so lashing out at that only implies that subconsciounsly you think he is involved.

besides, his involvment will be determined in the long run. but consider this facts. he is the president of the us. he was a good personal friend of the president of enron (he received millions in funding from him). he was president of an oil company when younger (one of the many companies he bankrupted while building his cv to be a president). his closest collaborators in the energy dept and other depts of the gov met with chief enron staff several times months before the bankrupcy. he received several phone calls from lay and other enron execs... yeah, he probably knew nothing about it. :rolleyes:

second... who the heck is dubbyah???

From the news I read today, apparently ENRON had far more influance with Ex-President Clinton than they ever had with our Current Commander in Chief, Dollar wise over the last 10 years like nearly EVERY other large corporation ENRON apparently gave money to both sides, however the Clinton administration (unlike Bush) Would regularly include Enron Exec's on his over seas junkets (at tax payer expense) and Also unlike the current Bush administration Ex-President Clinton Brokered the multi billion dollar deal that broke Enrons Back and started the slide to bankruptcy...that deal being the Hydro Electric Project in India which the Indian Power companies rennegged on once ENRON built the dam. Oh yes lets have FULL disclosure so we can see that oops its a giant conspiracy....brother! you anti-bush conspiarcy fans (short for fanatic dont ya know) really dont grasp how the world or politics or business works, Or perhaps you just dont have enough life experience in real world dealings to have a realistic view. Ahhh well

Believe what you want, but it wasn't Bush that forced the government to cover loans to ENRON that every commercial creditor refused.

Sorry this sounded too harsh and I didnt mean it to be nasty but I wrote it that way...In the US political system corporations give just as much money to the Dems as they do to the Republicans, They play both sides and to date there is NO indication that bush had any unusual dealings to ENRON or its collapse or the malfeasence perpetrated byu the company Execs. The Liberal Democrats are just as Rich and just as influenced by corporations as the republicans, none of them are driving Hyundai's or shopping at the dollar store. (talking about the politicians here)

[ 01-24-2002: Message edited by: MagiK ]</p>

OOps I didnt notice that the guy who posted this is the guy who lives in SPAIN.....you always seem very very quick to make comments on things you aren't involved in...especially when it is to criticise the US conservative politicians....why not run for office and clean things up?

Dubbyah was a way of referring to George W ("Dubbyah") Bush that arose during his presidential campaign, and remains in frequent use, today. It was apparently quite popular when he was running for Governor of Texas, as a means of separating the somewhat rigid but less forceful son from his daddy; and many of us still see him as best suited to that office. :D ;)

Dubbyah is both a term of affection and and..uhhh yeah...what fable said [img]smile.gif[/img] Course his detractors call him that too....

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by MagiK:
OOps I didnt notice that the guy who posted this is the guy who lives in SPAIN.....you always seem very very quick to make comments on things you aren't involved in...especially when it is to criticise the US conservative politicians....why not run for office and clean things up?<hr></blockquote>

well, i dont think i have to be involved in anything to comment about it. if that was the case, discussions would indeed be very rare. and i critisice us conservative politicians because if i started trashing spanish conservative politicians here that would be a very lonely argument since nobody knows anything about them.

besides, i do that in rl (and not only talk)... the advantage of a forum is that you dont feel the canes of the riot police on your back... well, at least not so often, as it seems.

oh, and thank you, but i have absolutely no interest in running for office neither here nor in the us. [img]smile.gif[/img]

bash bash bash bash bash bash bash bash bash.....ad nausium.

Lets see if I got this straight!
Enron gives LEGAL campaign donations to a legal campaign (both dems., & reps.) Enron calls the legaly elected government for help with a problem of their own causing. The government says sorry this is a captialist society It's not the business of government to bail you out of a mess that your incompetince got you in! The only thing we will do is try to get the money back that the TAXPAYERS of this country used to back one of your ventures (the power plant in India).

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by MagiK:
From the news I read today, apparently ENRON had far more influance with Ex-President Clinton than they ever had with our Current Commander in Chief...<hr></blockquote>

"Somewhat evenhanded," is the way the Washington Post, which was anti-Clinton during his heyday, puts it, regarding the company's lobbying efforts. They also say that Chairman Kenneth Lay disliked Clinton intensely. The Center for Responsive Politics reports that 73% of the company's donations went to Republicans over the last 12 years, but they did support such Democrats as Senate Energy Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman, whose state, New Hampshire, is crossed by a major east-west Enron gas pipeline.

Elsewhere, on Radio Nederland, I just heard that Ley personally gave more than $6 million to the Bush 2000 campaign, making him its largest single donor. And while Enron itself split its donations, no Clinton team members worked for Enron: no less than 12 high-ranking Bush administration members either had high positions of authority working for Enron previously, or are currently heavy stockholders.

That's certainly no grounds for culpability on Bush's part, IMO. But it does open him to the charge of unfair influence by the energy industry, which has dogged him, with reason, since last summer, when he refused to act on California's behalf in securing assistance against corporate energy monopolies that were squeezing the state and its inhabitants.

And it leaves one to question the balance of the Bush administration, whose view of commerce appears tilted entirely on the side of large corporate business.

[ 01-24-2002: Message edited by: fable ]</p>

Did Bush know about the Enron collapse BEFORE the end of last year... but of course! Lay is...err..was one of his best friends. Lemme see, they never EVER talked shop when gabbin on the phone? Plz. Before you Gopers list all your silly reasons why I'm wrong...if you wanna know who got what check this site out;

http://www.opensecrets.org

It's a whose who of pols (D & R) with their hand in the cookie jar. The irony here folks is that the people that will judge Enrons fate are the very same people on its payroll (so to speak).

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by fable:


"Somewhat evenhanded," is the way the Washington Post, which was anti-Clinton during his heyday, puts it, regarding the company's lobbying efforts.
]<hr></blockquote>

Yo dude I live in the Washington area..I don't know where you find any indication that the Washington Post was anti-clinton...The washington post is acknowledged as one of the more democratic liberall biased paper in the entire mid-atlantic region.. Washington Post = Democratic Liberal slated columns
Washington TIMES however = Rightwing conspiracy theory slanted columns.

The post was very much pro-clinton for all 8 years and continually ignored any attempt at an "even handed" reporting style. I know cause I was here....well from 94 on I was here.

Explain to me why Clinton PERSONALLY backed ENRON and its INDIA projects when commercial creditors wouldnt fund them, and why he always seemed to have ENRON Execs on his overseas junkets. Ive read the rhetoric from both sides, and I know that both sides are dirty in this whole thing, but I also know that any assertion about Bush knowing about or facilitating the ENRON Collapse is at this point BS, because there are so far no documents available to prove it..so it is all speculation He Knows Lay so he knows every thing about themmm You know I have a friend I knew for 25 years and never knew he was gay.....could it be that you can know someone and not know EVERYTHING? Could be.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by MagiK:


Yo dude I live in the Washington area..I don't know where you find any indication that the Washington Post was anti-clinton...The washington post is acknowledged as one of the more democratic liberall biased paper in the entire mid-atlantic region.. Washington Post = Democratic Liberal slated columns
Washington TIMES however = Rightwing conspiracy theory slanted columns.

The post was very much pro-clinton for all 8 years and continually ignored any attempt at an "even handed" reporting style. I know cause I was here....well from 94 on I was here.

Explain to me why Clinton PERSONALLY backed ENRON and its INDIA projects when commercial creditors wouldnt fund them, and why he always seemed to have ENRON Execs on his overseas junkets. Ive read the rhetoric from both sides, and I know that both sides are dirty in this whole thing, but I also know that any assertion about Bush knowing about or facilitating the ENRON Collapse is at this point BS, because there are so far no documents available to prove it..so it is all speculation He Knows Lay so he knows every thing about themmm You know I have a friend I knew for 25 years and never knew he was gay.....could it be that you can know someone and not know EVERYTHING? Could be.<hr></blockquote>

Hmmm...I think there might be a difference in the analogy of your friend being gay and Bushy knowing about Lays dirty lawndry. Bush and Lay were in the same business together and working in the same town as well (Houston). You are exactly right this Enron stuff goes back to the Clinton years if not further (we might never know since they took it on themselves to shred documents) and for your answer, I'm sure it was considered a "political favor" i.e Clinton owed Enron a favor for large amounts of campain money.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by norompanlasolas:


well, i dont think i have to be involved in anything to comment about it. if that was the case, discussions would indeed be very rare. and i critisice us conservative politicians because if i started trashing spanish conservative politicians here that would be a very lonely argument since nobody knows anything about them.

besides, i do that in rl (and not only talk)... the advantage of a forum is that you dont feel the canes of the riot police on your back... well, at least not so often, as it seems.

oh, and thank you, but i have absolutely no interest in running for office neither here nor in the us. [img]smile.gif[/img] <hr></blockquote>


Im sorry I worded my second comment poorly, I really only wanted to point out that I have noticed you consistantly take some moral high ground when it comes to bashing the USA (on other threads) and pay little or no attention to things closer to spain..Im sure if you look you can find many shortcomings in the local area. It is irritating when you see someone claiming another country as his location, bashing your own country when there are quite enough issues of a local nature to be addressed....Personally, I think Americans (not all of us) have the image of the "snooty French" I think you are making a wonderful case to have spain replace France. I know that doesnt matter to you. Anyway...pick and gripe all you want, every day as more info comes out there is less and less pointing to Bush being the bad guy so it really doesnt matter.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by norompanlasolas:


i do that in rl (and not only talk)... the advantage of a forum is that you dont feel the canes of the riot police on your back... well, at least not so often, as it seems.

<hr></blockquote>

You know there are ways to effect change without getting beaten by riot police ...even in Spain. We had a discussion threead a while ago wherein someone ranted at his poor treatment when he tried to get word out about his "cause" Upon further discussion we found that he irritated people by being pushy and inconsiderate of peoples own right not to talk to him. (thats a very breif description and not completely accurate but close) So if you are suffering beatings when trying to effect change in your local system..try a different tack...think before you act to make sure you will actually accomplish something other than getting beaten.

Rioting is not the answer nor is poor behavior, public insurection, vandalism or anyother action that causes mroe harm than good. Sometimes a little revolution is good but not all the time.

[ 01-25-2002: Message edited by: MagiK ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by MagiK:
Im sorry I worded my second comment poorly, I really only wanted to point out that I have noticed you consistantly take some moral high ground when it comes to bashing the USA (on other threads) and pay little or no attention to things closer to spain..Im sure if you look you can find many shortcomings in the local area. It is irritating when you see someone claiming another country as his location, bashing your own country when there are quite enough issues of a local nature to be addressed....Personally, I think Americans (not all of us) have the image of the "snooty French" I think you are making a wonderful case to have spain replace France. I know that doesnt matter to you. Anyway...pick and gripe all you want, every day as more info comes out there is less and less pointing to Bush being the bad guy so it really doesnt matter.<hr></blockquote>

well, if i took some moral high ground, i didnt notice it and i certainly didnt do it on purpose. i was just voicing my opinion. i do pay attention to the things happening here in spain, but i find it a little inconsistent to discuss them in this forum since nobody would understand (or care) about them.

sadly the us is pretty much grabbing all the headlines when it comes to political and ideological discussion right now. so its unavoidable that it becomes the center of discussion. personally, i think the world bank and the imf are more interesting cases of argumentation of domination of the poor nations via capitalism, but thats another story, isnt it?

oh, and i dont think im snotty, i just happen to be right about everything... ok, that was a joke magik [img]smile.gif[/img] [img]tongue.gif[/img]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by MagiK:
You know there are ways to effect change without getting beaten by riot police ...even in Spain. We had a discussion threead a while ago wherein someone ranted at his poor treatment when he tried to get word out about his "cause" Upon further discussion we found that he irritated people by being pushy and inconsiderate of peoples own right not to talk to him. (thats a very breif description and not completely accurate but close) So if you are suffering beatings when trying to effect change in your local system..try a different tack...think before you act to make sure you will actually accomplish something other than getting beaten.

Rioting is not the answer nor is poor behavior, public insurection, vandalism or anyother action that causes mroe harm than good. Sometimes a little revolution is good but not all the time.
[ 01-25-2002: Message edited by: MagiK ]<hr></blockquote>

well, i disagree with you. the system has a way of neutralising all that could change its current status. and police repression is one of them. and im not suffering beatings alone fighting for a personal cause. its a movement with a lot of people involved in many different countries (even your own, i might add). thinking is of course at the basis of everything, and many a different philosopher is at the core of what we try to promote. sometimes rioting and insurrection is all that is left to try to change the system.

this reminds me, pierre bourdieu died yesterday. a symbol of the commitment for the cause against neoliberalism and one of the great thinkers of contemporary society. descansa en paz compañero.

Explain to me why Clinton PERSONALLY backed ENRON and its INDIA projects when commercial creditors wouldnt fund them, and why he always seemed to have ENRON Execs on his overseas junkets...

Because Enron was one of the Energy Big Five, so that whenever the Pres (any Pres, for quite some time) went overseas to sell American industry (which actually happens quite a lot), representatives of all five came along. That included Enron. Yes, it's perfectly legal, and it's done all the time.

The difference is that Enron's CEO Lay was/is close friends with Bush, giving him his largest single 2000 campaign donation ($6 million). Lay despised Clinton. Secondly, Bush has twelve highly ranked members of his administration, which he personally appointed, who either worked previously for Enron, or have a large quantity of Enron stock. There were no such individuals in the Clinton administration.

In any case, take solace from the fact that none of this matters. Genuine feelings of horror and need for revenge to one side, Bush has played the Terrorism card to the hilt for political advantage at home-- the demand back in October that the Taliban hand over two American missionaries who had been proselytzing against Afghani law, for exampole, couldn't hurt his reputation with the American Religious Right. As a result of all this, Bush could be caught in bed with two ladies of the night, forging $1000 bills as he snorting cocaine, and there would be an outcry of sympathy for his mistreatment. ;)

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by fable:
[b]
The difference is that Enron's CEO Lay was/is close friends with Bush, giving him his largest single 2000 campaign donation ($6 million)<hr></blockquote>

I'd like to see a link showing Lay's personal contribution of $6 million.

Nothing I've seen or read puts his contribution anywhere near that high. He did much fund raising for Bush, but I do not believe his personal contribution was that high.

[ 01-25-2002: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by norompanlasolas:


well, if i took some moral high ground, i didnt notice it and i certainly didnt do it on purpose. i was just voicing my opinion. i do pay attention to the things happening here in spain, but i find it a little inconsistent to discuss them in this forum since nobody would understand (or care) about them.

sadly the us is pretty much grabbing all the headlines when it comes to political and ideological discussion right now. so its unavoidable that it becomes the center of discussion. personally, i think the world bank and the imf are more interesting cases of argumentation of domination of the poor nations via capitalism, but thats another story, isnt it?

oh, and i dont think im snotty, i just happen to be right about everything... ok, that was a joke magik [img]smile.gif[/img] [img]tongue.gif[/img] <hr></blockquote>

:D I did not say snotty, snotty in american english slang is a rather more offensive term than Snooty [img]smile.gif[/img] really I would not call you snotty, you arent that kind of person.

As for people not being interested in things that you have a problem with in Spain..I think you are wrong, one of the things that I value the most is information about other places. One reason I act all "high n mighty" when I do wheigh in on some of these things is I don't just accept the american press version of things..I talk to insiders when I can and I rely on my non american friends to clue me in on what THEY are being told about the same incident...eventually you can sift out what is "probably" the truth...this comes from a 10 year history of being in the intelligence gathering community so in closeing not even the FRENCH are snotty [img]smile.gif[/img] they are just snooty ;)
Just as most americans are myopic when it comes to overseas issues.


PS. What is the current type of government in Spain anyway? Spain was never one of my spheres of responsibility while I was in the service so I never paid much attention to current events.

[ 01-25-2002: Message edited by: MagiK ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by fable:
[b]Because Enron was one of the Energy Big Five, so that whenever the Pres (any Pres, for quite some time) went overseas to sell American industry (which actually happens quite a lot), representatives of all five came along. That included Enron. Yes, it's perfectly legal, and it's done all the time.

<hr></blockquote>

Actually your wrong there...ENRON WAS one of the Energy big 5 they aren't no more [img]smile.gif[/img]

Secondly you are wrong on another account..BUSH has consistantly denied ENRON execs places on his junkets from the day he took office. So it isn't "any president" that would do it. (hardly the act of a bosom buddy but thats a different issue)

And the last thing I make it sound like Bush has done something wrong by acting as he has in this whole terrism thing..sort of hinting that he has only done things for political gain. I believe you are wrong, whats more the greatest majority of the nation seems to think he has done exactly what needed doing, the Mojority of the government also agrees with what he has done so far. Bill Clinton did what he did for his Legacy it was the reason he did everything but to just up and declare that Bush only acts when it is politicaly expedient because you have beem made cynical by previous administration or un-proven speculations about what kind of man he was 25 or 30 years ago
is ridiculous. 30 years ago I was a totaly different man, if I had to be judged by who I was then versus who I am now that would be grossly unfair. A reformed alcoholic who has stayed sober for more than 10 years should not be considered a drunk. I believe for many reasons the GWB is one of the more Honest and Upright men we have had in office in a long time. I would put him as he is now right up there with Jimmy Carter. They aren't saints but they are honest and decent men of conviction, and so far every world leader who has met him personally and talked to him has had nothing but praise for his character and honesty even if they do not like his policy.

In the end, your post leaves me to believe that unless he does exactly what YOU want him to do..he is only doing things so that he can exploit them for his own political gain....that is so sad.

I realize the Dems are just itching to dig up dirt on GW, but to date there have been no skelatons dropping out of closets. Even if Lay did donate 6 million to GW's campaign, it proves absolutely nothing. Guilt by assiciation doesn't fly here. When Enron was tanking their exec's "most likely" approached Bush people looking for a bailout. They definitely met, but beyond that we don't know for sure what transpired in those conversations or who told who what. Again... it really means ZIP even if Lay told Bush that Enron was going down the tubes. The only means we have to judge GW is by his ACTIONS... and it's a matter of public record that the Executive branch did nothing to bail out Enron.

While it's obvious the Dems would dearly like some payback for the beating Clinton took, at this point they're not coming up with any ammo. NOTHING. To compare Slick Willie to GW isn't even funny, Willie and his honey have so many skelatons in closets they needed to buy a place up in NY just to store em all.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by MagiK:
:D I did not say snotty, snotty in american english slang is a rather more offensive term than Snooty [img]smile.gif[/img] really I would not call you snotty, you arent that kind of person.
<hr></blockquote>

oh, ok. eeehrrrmmm... what is snooty???

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by MagiK:
As for people not being interested in things that you have a problem with in Spain..I think you are wrong, one of the things that I value the most is information about other places. One reason I act all "high n mighty" when I do wheigh in on some of these things is I don't just accept the american press version of things..I talk to insiders when I can and I rely on my non american friends to clue me in on what THEY are being told about the same incident...eventually you can sift out what is "probably" the truth...this comes from a 10 year history of being in the intelligence gathering community so in closeing not even the FRENCH are snotty [img]smile.gif[/img] they are just snooty ;)
Just as most americans are myopic when it comes to overseas issues.


PS. What is the current type of government in Spain anyway? Spain was never one of my spheres of responsibility while I was in the service so I never paid much attention to current events.
<hr></blockquote>

you were in intel??? well, you could be very helpful pointing out some of our flaws in it, then... [img]smile.gif[/img]

regarding spanish gov, well. its a democracy, with a president (aznar) with a lot of power (and no prime minister that can balance it like in other countries like italy, etc). the popular party (rightwinged) is in office now, and it looks like its going to be there for a long time. and since its spain's turn at the presidency of the european community, now a spaniard is at the helm there too.

police and army are very strong (direct result of all those years under f***face dictator franco) and repressive, and there is a strong student/worker unit trying to change things though the elderly and the middle class are quite comfortable the way things are.

lots of things more to tell, of course. but little time and i have to go revolt somewhere... well, actually, just help fix a leak at some friends house. [img]smile.gif[/img]

I started a Enron thread mybe a week or so ago but non the less I may have come off a little strong in my opening statement. Sorry you guys.
It is true that the Bush administration refused to help Enron ward off bankruptcy. But those who suggest this exonerates the existing campain finance system are a little off the point here. Everyone is on the take.. both parties. Enron and its officers donated $1.7 million in the 2000 election board. 70% which came from soft money. I'll bet alot of that money is heading back their way real soon. Damage control 101.
In 1998 the head of the Comodity Futures Trading Commision suggested oversite. But congress buried the proposal because industry participants did not want to be regulated.
The Enron scandal will take a long time to figure out..But the work on soft-moneys and campain finance are well under way. Congress will do something for sure now. The Senate has already passed a fairly good bill thus forcing a vote in the House.
This is where we need changes IMHO.
I wouldn't be surprised if I walked outside and saw shredded paper blowing around right now... [img]smile.gif[/img]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by norompanlasolas:

you were in intel??? well, you could be very helpful pointing out some of our flaws in it, then... [img]smile.gif[/img]
<hr></blockquote>

Yep, 10 years in the Naval Security Group Working with/for NSA
both in the Atlantic and Pacific and on occasion the IO

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by *\Conan/*:
I started a Enron thread mybe a week or so ago but non the less I may have come off a little strong in my opening statement. Sorry you guys.
It is true that the Bush administration refused to help Enron ward off bankruptcy. But those who suggest this exonerates the existing campain finance system are a little off the point here. Everyone is on the take.. both parties. Enron and its officers donated $1.7 million in the 2000 election board. 70% which came from soft money. I'll bet alot of that money is heading back their way real soon. Damage control 101.
In 1998 the head of the Comodity Futures Trading Commision suggested oversite. But congress buried the proposal because industry participants did not want to be regulated.
The Enron scandal will take a long time to figure out..But the work on soft-moneys and campain finance are well under way. Congress will do something for sure now. The Senate has already passed a fairly good bill thus forcing a vote in the House.
This is where we need changes IMHO.
I wouldn't be surprised if I walked outside and saw shredded paper blowing around right now... [img]smile.gif[/img] <hr></blockquote>


Conan..I live in the vicinity of DC and I can tell you...there isn't a day goes by where you can't see the shredded paper cloud to the south of me [img]smile.gif[/img]

Campaign Finance reform is needed I agree 100% the problem that needs to be addressed along with it is the liberal slant of holywood and the so called News agencies..when they are so heavily vested on one side of things it is easier for the politicians for that side to get their message out...they need less "soft money" because their beddies in the mass media will do it for free or an extremely discounted rate...we need to make sure that all parties have an equal venue for airing their side of the issue.

Actually your wrong there...ENRON WAS one of the Energy big 5 they aren't no more

Secondly you are wrong on another account..BUSH has consistantly denied ENRON execs places on his junkets from the day he took office. So it isn't "any president" that would do it. (hardly the act of a bosom buddy but thats a different issue)

Magik, context. First off, how can I be wrong with my initial statement, if you're agreeing with it? I said WAS. Not IS.

Second, I was discussing Enron's appearance in Clinton's business advocating trips overseas, specifically said so, and not Bush's: so again, you didn't read what I wrote. :D

You shouldn't really agree with me so much and say I was wrong. Try disagreeing and saying I was right, for a change. ;)

Conan, The fact that the Bush administration did not give any help to Enron shows that campaign finance reform is not needed when we the people elect honest men and women!!!!!
Fable, who gives a cares if 12 , 20 , or 2,000 were former Enron execs. Show me where they gave any favors to Enron!!!! The FACT that there were 12 former Enron execs and they none did anything illegal, or uneithical on Enron's behalf testifies against you. Again I ask what was done on behalf of Enron?

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by John D Harris:
Fable, who gives a cares if 12 , 20 , or 2,000 were former Enron execs. Show me where they gave any favors to Enron!!!! The FACT that there were 12 former Enron execs and they none did anything illegal, or uneithical on Enron's behalf testifies against you. Again I ask what was done on behalf of Enron?<hr></blockquote>

<font color = "lightblue">Why doesn't anybody actually read what I write? :rolleyes: I specifically said the Bush administration has no culpability in the matter. Nor did I say that there were 12 former Enron executives in Bush's top administrative team, but that 12 of Bush's top administrative team included former Enron executives, and those who have a great deal of Enron stock.

I specifically wrote, and I repeat:

And for all that I think he's a poor president in many respects, I don't think he deserves this.

Got that? Not that Dubbyah deserves to be jailed, or flogged, or covered with tar and feathers. I stated approximately the opposite. Sheesh.

For what it's worth, here's the first post of mine which you missed reading. This gives what I think may be the reasons behind the current furor over Enron and Bush:

Galadria1, unfortunately, the Republican Congress under the last administration practiced a new smear tactic of deliberately demanding Clinton's resignation with every piece of news that implicated relatives or friends of the then-president. It was previously customary to attack a president's political positions; with Clinton, all-out war was declared upon his personal life, as well. I've read one exhaustively researched book that quoted samples from every dead dog that was laid at Clinton's doorstep. It was a carefully orchestrated campaign, costing in the multi-millions of dollars, and with a goal of never letting a day go by without having some new dirt to offer.

Since the Republicans reset the rules of engagement with Clinton, the Democrats feel justified in engaging in a feeding frenzy where Dubbyah is concerned. They're not as well organized and they lack the sheer viciousness of some of the key members of the former cabal (like the previous Republican House Whip, Knute Gingrich), but they're still new at this game. For better or worse, I expect to see an escalation of these tactics when circumstances permit, and whether Dubbyah deserves it, or not. And for all that I think he's a poor president in many respects, I don't think he deserves this.
</font>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by fable:


"Somewhat evenhanded," is the way the Washington Post, which was anti-Clinton during his heyday, puts it, regarding the company's lobbying efforts. They also say that Chairman Kenneth Lay disliked Clinton intensely. The Center for Responsive Politics reports that 73% of the company's donations went to Republicans over the last 12 years, but they did support such Democrats as Senate Energy Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman, whose state, New Hampshire, is crossed by a major east-west Enron gas pipeline.

Elsewhere, on Radio Nederland, I just heard that Ley personally gave more than $6 million to the Bush 2000 campaign, making him its largest single donor. And while Enron itself split its donations, no Clinton team members worked for Enron: no less than 12 high-ranking Bush administration members either had high positions of authority working for Enron previously, or are currently heavy stockholders.

That's certainly no grounds for culpability on Bush's part, IMO. But it does open him to the charge of unfair influence by the energy industry, which has dogged him, with reason, since last summer, when he refused to act on California's behalf in securing assistance against corporate energy monopolies that were squeezing the state and its inhabitants.

And it leaves one to question the balance of the Bush administration, whose view of commerce appears tilted entirely on the side of large corporate business.

[ 01-24-2002: Message edited by: fable ]<hr></blockquote>

I quoted in-total then I'll deal with the specifics. JDH

Fable Wrote: no less than 12 high-ranking Bush administration members either had high positions of authority working for Enron previously, or are currently heavy stockholders. (Statement repeated in another post using slightly differant words)

Then Fable wrote:And it leaves one to question the balance of the Bush administration, whose view of commerce appears tilted entirely on the side of large corporate business.

Now I don't know where you come from , but using the words "And it leaves one to question " at the end of an arguement is concidered a conclusion. In most places that use the English language.

I did read what you wrote. and I wrote: who cares if there were 12, 20 , or 2,000 former execs.

Now what was that you said to Magik about agreeing/wrong and disagreeing/right :D

Nice try on the cutting and pasting of two seperate posts to cover your rear-end, that was a good move, showing skill and adaptive argueing (sp?) abilites! But please don't try to play a nit-picky symantics (sp?) game, it belittles the user's Intelect! that kind of tactic makes the user look like they are "book smart but have no common sense" Your skills remind me of former "opponent" (writen tongue-in-cheek) that I enjoyed discussing and agueing with untill they commited the error of lying. so, instead of exposing the lie and humilating them I choose to no-longer discus anything with them. I'd hate to see that with you, I think we could have a lot of great "arguements" (T-i-C) with the potientual to rock the foundations of "Hale" Itself.

John, its getting silly how much it costs to run a competative campain anymore. Good people are not being able to compete with these soft-monies. Representatives and so on use up to millions of dollars on their campains and staff. Scrutinys, media crap, and concerns about family run just as deep. I beleive the people should get the "donation" moneys twards infrastructures and social programs. Somehow. I dont know.. seems like such a huge waste of homeland assets.
Its not that Americans elect bad people..not by a long shot. We have talked about checks and balances in the past concerning elected officials. Most good and a couple not so good. I continue to vote [img]smile.gif[/img]
I can tell you that threw this major bankruptcy no one here is going to go against some kind of regulation in soft-monies. Its turning out to be the scape goat to try to keep people investing and the machine rolling. Confidence is running a little short out here lately. The big K takes the bite and congress gets younger and younger every year...Strom is ailing bad also.. and GB is never to be seen around here. [img]smile.gif[/img]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>John D Harris wrote:
Nice try on the cutting and pasting of two seperate posts to cover your rear-end, that was a good move, showing skill and adaptive argueing (sp?) abilites!<hr></blockquote>

In other words, you can't deal with the fact that you misread what I wrote. Unfortunately for you, the words are there: and people can decide on their own, using logic, whether "open to question" as you state is the same thing as "we've come to a conclusion." :rolleyes:

Though you do have faith in achieving some amazing conclusions. How you arrived at:

The FACT that there were 12 former Enron execs and they none did anything illegal, or uneithical on Enron's behalf testifies against you.

...in your post to me, when I had previously written about the attempts to hammer Bush with Enron:

And for all that I think he's a poor president in many respects, I don't think he deserves this.

...is truly of that faith that surpasseth understanding. Can't you see that you accused me of one thing above, when I had already written the opposite?

I'm not a debater, so if you want to play shadow games with me, you'll probably win. But because all the words in this case are out in the open--my post, your comments, my response--I don't think the game are going to matter. Read what I wrote, and stop trying to imagine me saying the opposite of what I did. Or making me out to be a supporter of the "let's club Bush with Enron" society, when I'm decidedly not.

[ 01-25-2002: Message edited by: fable ]</p>

fable, what the??

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by *\Conan/*:
John, its getting silly how much it costs to run a competative campain anymore. Good people are not being able to compete with these soft-monies. Representatives and so on use up to millions of dollars on their campains and staff. Scrutinys, media crap, and concerns about family run just as deep. I beleive the people should get the "donation" moneys twards infrastructures and social programs. Somehow. I dont know.. seems like such a huge waste of homeland assets.
Its not that Americans elect bad people..not by a long shot. We have talked about checks and balances in the past concerning elected officials. Most good and a couple not so good. I continue to vote [img]smile.gif[/img]
I can tell you that threw this major bankruptcy no one here is going to go against some kind of regulation in soft-monies. Its turning out to be the scape goat to try to keep people investing and the machine rolling. Confidence is running a little short out here lately. The big K takes the bite and congress gets younger and younger every year...Strom is ailing bad also.. and GB is never to be seen around here. [img]smile.gif[/img] <hr></blockquote>

You're right about the cost Conan!!!!

I fear that the excuse of Enron's supossed influence will be used to write bad legislation ie: McCain/ whoever where individual businesses/corporations can not give but labor unions can. Or a law where an individual citizen or group of citizens can't pay for advertising for/against a bill/policy/canidate. From what I hear coming from the campaign refromers (granted it is from the news media)is "see Enron had paid all this money for influence" without a shread of evidence there was any influence. Refrom because of cost, ok, but not for nonexsisting influence we have laws that cover that already. And in this case they seem to have been followed.