quote:
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 ]
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
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.