enron, andersen and bush - Page 4

John D Harris · 01-25-2002, 07:16 PM

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?

fable · 01-25-2002, 07:29 PM

quote:
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?

Why doesn't anybody actually read what I write?

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.

John D Harris · 01-25-2002, 08:36 PM

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.

*\Conan/* · 01-25-2002, 08:52 PM

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]

fable · 01-25-2002, 08:57 PM

quote:
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!

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."

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 ]

*\Conan/* · 01-25-2002, 09:11 PM

fable, what the??

John D Harris · 01-25-2002, 09:25 PM

quote:
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]

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.

01-25-2002, 07:16 PM	#31
John D Harris Ninja Storm Shadow Join Date: March 27, 2001 Location: Northport,Alabama, USA Age: 62 Posts: 3,577	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? __________________ Crustiest of the OLD COOTS "Donating mirrors for years to help the Liberal/Socialist find their collective rear-ends, because both hands doesn't seem to be working. Veitnam 61-65:KIA 1864 66:KIA 5008 67:KIA 9378 68:KIA 14594 69:KIA 9414 70:KIA 4221 71:KIA 1380 72:KIA 300 Afghanistan2001-2008 KIA 585 2009-2012 KIA 1465 and counting Davros 1 Much abliged Massachusetts

01-25-2002, 07:29 PM	#32
fable Quintesson Join Date: March 17, 2001 Location: Where I am. Posts: 1,089	quote: 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? Why doesn't anybody actually read what I write? 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.

01-25-2002, 08:36 PM	#33
John D Harris Ninja Storm Shadow Join Date: March 27, 2001 Location: Northport,Alabama, USA Age: 62 Posts: 3,577	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. __________________ Crustiest of the OLD COOTS "Donating mirrors for years to help the Liberal/Socialist find their collective rear-ends, because both hands doesn't seem to be working. Veitnam 61-65:KIA 1864 66:KIA 5008 67:KIA 9378 68:KIA 14594 69:KIA 9414 70:KIA 4221 71:KIA 1380 72:KIA 300 Afghanistan2001-2008 KIA 585 2009-2012 KIA 1465 and counting Davros 1 Much abliged Massachusetts

01-25-2002, 08:52 PM	#34
\Conan/ Red Dragon Join Date: March 1, 2001 Location: Virginia, USA Age: 62 Posts: 1,512	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] __________________ \\Conan/
$\Conan/ is offline$

01-25-2002, 08:57 PM	#35
fable Quintesson Join Date: March 17, 2001 Location: Where I am. Posts: 1,089	quote: 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! 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." 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 ]

01-25-2002, 09:11 PM	#36
\Conan/ Red Dragon Join Date: March 1, 2001 Location: Virginia, USA Age: 62 Posts: 1,512	fable, what the?? __________________ \\Conan/
$\Conan/ is offline$

01-25-2002, 09:25 PM	#37
John D Harris Ninja Storm Shadow Join Date: March 27, 2001 Location: Northport,Alabama, USA Age: 62 Posts: 3,577	quote: 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] 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. __________________ Crustiest of the OLD COOTS "Donating mirrors for years to help the Liberal/Socialist find their collective rear-ends, because both hands doesn't seem to be working. Veitnam 61-65:KIA 1864 66:KIA 5008 67:KIA 9378 68:KIA 14594 69:KIA 9414 70:KIA 4221 71:KIA 1380 72:KIA 300 Afghanistan2001-2008 KIA 585 2009-2012 KIA 1465 and counting Davros 1 Much abliged Massachusetts

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Enron Voice Recording	John D Harris	General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005)	3	03-06-2002 07:07 AM
ENRON	Tarox	General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005)	2	02-12-2002 02:39 PM
Enron an explination	Arvon	General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005)	3	02-06-2002 10:23 AM
The Enron crap has it's first death.	nick1979	General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005)	3	01-25-2002 07:24 PM
Enron	\Conan/	General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005)	5	01-15-2002 04:31 PM