Four More Years...

quote:

---

But more importantly, if you examine the Message List for this thread you'll see that you were replying to the Fat Cat Heaven! (Message 15) subthread that I started.

---

Well I will totally apologize if my responding to someone that was responding to you is somehow a response to you. I did not realize posts with topic headers were actually subthreads. I am not saying any of this sarcastically. I was only trying to make a point with TC and was not about your subthread.

quote:

---

You told me. I replied, in effect, that it didn't seem like much, and I thought that would be it.

---

I did not hound you to come to my conclusion. You appeared to be saying that the facts and not just the conclusions were debatable. It is this distinction which I have been asking you to make, and what I have hounded you for an answer on. I have even said if it is just the conclusions I have no problem.I am uncertain why you keep dodging that direct question, unless your problem is with the points of fact, and yet you do not want to have to answer (with evidence) for calling my points into question (for which I have provided plenty of evidence).

quote:

---

I seem to have a lot in common with the democratic candidates for president, who evidently don't find the issue sufficiently compelling to even bring it up in a nationally televised debate. Why do you think that is, holmes?

---

Ohhhhhh percy. This is really sad. Did you even watch the debate? Kucinich and Sharpton kept trying to raise new points of argument which either the moderators or Kerry and Edwards cut off. Indeed there were points brought up by the moderators which Kerry and Edwards cut off... AND there were issues that Kerry and Edwards tried to discuss but were cut off by the moderators.All of them seemed pretty miffed that the moderators kept coming back to gay marriage as like THE focal point of possible debate. It was that or what is the difference between Kerry and Edwards. There was even an interview with one of the moderators afterward where she said those were the questions she was trying to get answered.Why didn't they mention it specifically? They didn't mention EVERYTHING and Enron is certainly down on the totem pole as I myself pointed out.

quote:

---

Let met get this straight. You've made this big deal over something that not only isn't in my top 10, it isn't even in your top 10? Sheesh!

---

If someone came on and said they were against Kerry because he believed in evolution and that was obviously wrong, because there is NO REAL EVIDENCE for evolution... it's all fallacies and contradictory facts no one can really know... you'd probably address that comment whether it was part of the election or not. (Which by the way they did not address faithbased programs in the debate and that is an issue, right?).If you admit that the points I made were correct, they are substantiated, then there is no problem. If you try to end on statements which make it look like there is some sort of question about these points, then I cannot let it rest... because it is a fallacy on your part.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

I haven't addressed your facts because you presented a moving target.

---

All I did was shorten my comments because I get lazy writing the same thing again. In fact in rewriting I may have even changed the order of the list. My only purpose was to refresh your memory that there were questions still unanswered. Pick any list, and the points are covered.In fact of both #1's you listed the points within each were clearly supported to point of what should be common knowledge (are you really questioning those points?). So what's the difference if they read slightly differently (mainly in length)?I like the way you make out like it was my changing points that made you not answer the first time I asked my question. That makes lots of sense. If you answered, I wouldn't have had to rewrite the list.

quote:

---

This is one reason why, unless a topic is central to my primary interests, that I'd prefer not to debate you. It's just too much work.

---

Yeah, I can relate. You start by discussing Enron apparently as an issue people should be concerned about (and alluding to Republicans not caring about it)... TC says Republicans are taking care of Enron... I ask him if he is willing to take that investigation wherever it leads (alluding to Republicans not really going to do so)... Then you come at me suggesting there is no real evidence... and by the end of your refinements you make out like you never cared about things like Enron and it isn't an issue in this election.This of course begging the question why a guy who says he is so like the cadidates he'd never mention Enron, did in fact mention Enron.Ad hoc always fails you percy, and so does trying to play neutral when your obvious purpose is to ignore evidence that one of your statements is wrong.So yeah, if you don't care to address whether the points are right or not (pick either list), then we're done. I'd almost be grateful if you never replied to any of my posts outside of science again... you can't seem to figure out what you actually care about or think.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

Does that make two people now that Holmes doesn't want to reply to him?

---

Actually I think it makes 4: Syamsu, Rrhain, Percy, and someone whose name I forgot at this point. Granted I have cut some slack for the first two already, and for Percy it is just for political topics.Once it appears useful communication is almost never had, it just seems to make sense not to waste anyone's time starting something. I've noted before that I never respond to Brad McFall's posts. Even if it is brilliant I can't tell what the hell he's saying and so why bother him...[This message has been edited by holmes, 02-28-2004]

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

what a shock, a reply from you!

---

Why should it be a shock? You keep trying to throw an innuendo grenade at me before jumping into your escape pod. It ain't gonna be that easy.

quote:

---

Significantly, you go from "Bush was close friends with Ken Lay" to "Bush knew Ken Lay." And you go from Bush "lying...that he really didn't know a man he had previously called 'Kenny Boy'" to no mention.

---

Hahahahahaha... those are superficial differences at best. And as I said the whole purpose was to remind you that there were questions on the table, and that you could pick any of the lists. Your charge only makes sense if I am changing the nature of the points, not shortening them down and saying you can use the earlier/longer ones. Sheesh.

quote:

---

Even if Bush and Ken Lay were "close personal friends" I wouldn't put any stock in it because I have no way of knowing if they mean it or if it's just political-speak where everyone they know is a "close personal friend."

---

Meaning you never looked at the links. Boy you'd grill a creationist that pulled this on you. In the links Lay HIMSELF made the close connection, as well as one of his managers discussing their close ties.

quote:

---

Congress is seeking evidence, Cheney won't turn over papers, Scalia hasn't recused himself, Ken Lay influenced the White House on energy policy, and the energy companies scammed CA.

---

Note: I have repeatedly said that these points are points of fact, and YOU DON'T HAVE TO DRAW A CONCLUSION OF ILLEGALITY FROM THEM. It is your apparent dismissal that there is such a thing as real evidence energy companies scammed CA, when it is FACT, or that Ken Lay was attempting to influence policy, when it is FACT, that is all I am concerned about.If you want to say it isn't conclusive of illegality, fine. But that those facts are facts, is not. It's like a creationist saying there are no transitional fossils, or that radio dating is rigged for a preset conclusion. Even innuedo that they are "possibly wrong" is dead wrong.

quote:

---

Now you're just making it up. I never discussed Enron, not even after you introduced the Enron-gate issue. I suggest you reexamine Fat Cat Heaven! (Message 15) from me and going forward if you think otherwise.

---

One of us is seriously slipping here. Yes, please check out message 15. Better yet let's start with crash's post you were "quipping" about...

quote:

---

What I love is that Americans are more concerned about somebody getting beer money from the guvment than about corporate accounting fraud, outrageous salaries for failure CEO's, and unprecidented Christmas present deregulation for the energy industry.

---

Notice that crash mentions: corporate accounting fraud, and unprecedented Christmas present deregulation for the energy industry.Goddamn if that isn't what I am talking about, especially De-reg-u-la-tion for the ENERGY INDUSTRY. He didn't say Enrongate, and I NEVER said Enrongate... but if those are not talking about the issue I was talking about (effects of energy policy deregulation), then I must be insane.Looks like someone is concerned about deregulating energy policy after all.To which you "quipped" back:

quote:

---

Right you are! The Enron's, WorldCom's and Martha Stewart's of this country can rest easy knowing that attention is focused elsewhere.

---

Is it just me or is that an ENRON in your post? Hmmmmm, he talks about some of the same points I brought up and then YOU replied by mentioning ENRON. That pretty well leaves you being either concerned with Enron's collapse and its aftermath (accounting issues), or their connection to deregulation issues. Unless you were concerned about Lay's severence package from Enron?Thankfully it seems we can widdle things down:

quote:

---

You're making it up again, holmes. I've never made any statement about my level of concern about the Enron collapse and it's aftermath, but I have been very clear all along in saying that your Enron-gate issue doesn't blip on my radar. I suggest you reread the thread.

---

That second sentence seems to indicate your initial quip was not concerning Enron's accounting fiasco, which led to collapse and aftermath. That leaves only two options, with the more likely being Energy deregulation... Or what else were you referring to in crash's post when you mentioned Enron?But let me say I do agree that the Enron collapse is not the issue. I never mentioned it as an issue either. In fact the posts of mine you glossed over, which addressed your question of favors for contributions, was that it was the UNTOUCHED DEREGULATION of the CA ENERGY INDUSTRY which was the favor. They TURNED THEIR HEADS even as CA GOT SCAMMED.Don't believe me? Here is your quote from post #24:

quote:

---

Am I correct in concluding you believe there's been an inappropriate exchange of favors for donations?

---

Yet in your last post you skipped over MY DIRECT REPLY IN POST #32, which reads:

quote:

---

I believe the nature of wrongdoing is more along the lines of not doing something (turning their heads), than actively helping them commit a crime...
PS--- and the influence of energy policy is only a small piece. The scandal regarding the price gouging of Californians by Bush's pals (including Enron I believe) to which he looked the other way is perhaps more important.

---

Now maybe the confusion was in my wording in the PS? The first sentence I suppose would have been clearer if I said "RECENT influence of NATIONAL energy policy being formulated by Dick Cheney", but at the time I figured the second sentence was good enough to set the date back at the mess caused by unrestrained deregulation of CA energy policy.Either way I am uncertain where you got the idea my "Enrongate" had anything to do with the collapse of Enron, as every single link I gave was about the history of the CA energy crisis due to state deregulation, and the emerging connection to Bush through Ken Lay on that crisis, as well as Lay's STATED future aspirations for national energy policy (which do set a pretty good precedent for what the Cheney papers may hold).So to recap... my "Enrongate", which I set out in #32 (and you did not mention) is about the protection of deregulation efforts which occured long before the attempt at establishing national energy deregulation, and long before the collapse of Enron. I'm sorry if the evidence (which Bush's and Lay's own people supplied) ties Bush into it.

quote:

---

I thought your points about why Nader didn't lose the 2000 election for Gore were pretty much on the money, partcularly the first one about not carrying his home state. Interesting that Leiberman didn't do better this year - his widespread appeal in 2000 (TN notwithstanding) seemed to presage a more impressive showing in a shot at the ticket's top spot this year.

---

Thanks. My assessment of why Lieberman really bought the farm this time is that his position was so close to Bush's (that was one of MY problems with them in 2000) that he didn't seem a choice for change. Specifically his support for the Iraq War, and staunch defense of Ariel Sharon (yeah yeah we don't have to get into that). Every time he was asked about these issues, he folded like a house of cards. That did not spell confidence.Or maybe it was because he was a jew? Since you missed the debates you missed a bizarre turn as Larry King was not bothering to look at Kucinich while the guy answered a question. So Kucinich said "Larry!" to get his attention back. Everyone laughed and then Larry King said (as an excuse) "I can look at someone else while listening to you talk. It's an old Jewish trick." At which point Sharpton told him not to get into ethnic stuff like that. That had to set Jews back in politics a number of years... Jewish tricks? Now they'll all seem sneaky even if they are looking at you.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

All I said was that for me your evidence didn't provide much support for your conclusions.

---

But, but, but... Why the... You understand this is the answer I was looking for?I had a post specifically stating that I could not tell if you were doubting the evidence or the conclusion or both, and I just needed that answer... it was all I was looking for.And if the above is the conclusion you came to based on the evidence, that is fine. I also said this. If you think all of this back and forth has been stupid, then blame yourself. You could have written the sentence above, when I asked if that is what you meant or not.

quote:

---

Of course I didn't look at your links.

---

Then your statement about your conclusion above is meaningless as you were clearly unaware of evidence before it came up, what was being discussed when it came up, and never looked at it once it was presented to you. You rip on creationists who exhibit this kind of intellectual laziness, yet continue to state conclusions... shame on you.

quote:

---

When you're driving and someone cuts you off, I'll bet you follow them down the highway.

---

Nahhhhhhhh. I'm actually pretty even tempered in real life, you'd be surprised. But I'll tell ya...I'd rather be that than a person who makes statements like "your evidence didn't provide much support for your conclusions" when I never looked at and never would look at (once actually presented) that person's evidence.

quote:

---

Were you a bulldog in a former life?

---

Nahhhhhhh. I'm a scorpio in this one. Intellectual dishonesty sets off my intellectual defense system. It's a bad habit. I know it. But it doesn't make me wrong... just more annoying than I need to be.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Uh... I had a widdle pwoblem with my spehwing, I weally meant whittle.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

I *did* say this.

---

The WAY you said it was NOT clear TO ME if you meant because the evidence was fallacious, or if it did not add up to the conclusion. That is why I said (more than once) I did not understand what you said, and wanted clarification.For a guy that keeps telling me to read through the messages, you sure do a poor job of it.You can say I'm an idiot for not understanding what you meant the first time, but you're the one causing problems and prolonging argument by refusing to answer me when I said I did not understand what you meant.That made it look like a dodge, and smell like a dodge. Maybe it wasn't, but what it was was not clear... and I SAID SO.

quote:

---

I can't emphasize enough how wrong you are. To say this you have to ignore the facts of the thread. You made some vague assertions in Message 22, I poked around on the web, read a couple articles, and replied with a link to one of them in Message 24 asking if this was what you were talking about. You confirmed this, and then you provided a specific list of assertions and evidence in Message 33 that contained pretty much the same information as the link I provided.

---

You are either making a rather large error, or you are being dishonest. I'll assume the error... Again, YOU should reread the thread.Me#22: I question TC if he and Republicans are really going to go get everyone involved with Enron corrpution, or if it's going to be stopped before it hits Bush.You#24: Like you said. You presented links regarding what you think I implied in my post #22 to TC.TC#25: He says if I have evidence for what I implied in #22 then I should present it.Me#32: Reponding to YOU (#24), I said what you were talking about was NOT primarily what I was talking about, but please hang on because I would get you info.Me#33: In response to TC(#25), I asked which evidence he wanted me to get for him? It was not supposed to be THE evidence, they were questions which facts he wanted to see evidence for. I also state clearly that I am only talking about evidence that suggests an investigation should take place, and NOT that their actions were necessarily anything more than unethical.You#35: You respond to my post (#33) for TC (me asking what evidence he wants), and say you could not draw a conclusion from what I presented there...Me#36: I respond to YOU (#35), saying hold your horses I have yet to assemble the evidence yet, and I'd have it by the weekend.You#37: Still not waiting for the evidence, you start lambasting me and said you found stuff on the internet saying what I said, ironically before you could even know what I had to say. In fact you should have already known what you found in #24 was only a SMALL PART. That is what I said directly to you in #32.Me#40: Now pissed off that you have continued to insult me while I said I was still getting evidence to make the case I was talking about, I ran out and started getting them before the weekend. THIS IS THE FIRST POST WHERE I STARTED PRESENTING THE CASE I WAS TALKING ABOUT.My guess is you didn't even read that post because if you did you'd know you didn't have to go to all the links.I said there was one with a good overview of where all the evidence fit into place. Or maybe you could have gone to Waxman's link where he actually answers the incredulity posed in your link of #24? After all he's the guy actually doing the investigation... not CBS. The amount of links I posted were for background material and to show you a small sample of what is out there.Or you could have gone later to the smoking gun link I gave. That was three links.

quote:

---

No, shame on you. I *never* "rip on creationists" who don't read links.

---

No, you rip on creationists that do not do their homework or avoid counterevidence when it is presented to them, and still make conclusive statements. As I said, I pointed out which were the few important links to go to. It wasn't a long reading assignment.

quote:

---

I already said this was wrong once, but since you state it twice I'll tell you it's wrong twice.

---

So now I'll tell you twice, you have everything skewed. I set out in my post #32 that I was not primarily discussing what your link in #24 was talking about, and I never built the case I was talking about (including the full nature of the evidence) until post #40.Post #33 had nothing to do with you, nor did it present anything except maybe implications of the type of evidence I could provide or TC could go looking for to start his own investigation.Perhaps I was mistaken in thinking you were slamming the idea that I could find such evidence that would prove the points listed in 33. But your mistake was thinking 33 was talking to you, setting out the full nature of the issue, and presenting the full evidence for it.I might add that you continually painted me into a position (apparently assuming) that I cared about that as a MAJOR issue for the election, rather than simply pointing out a hypocrisy in TC's position, and that I was drawing a conclusion greater than it warranted an investigation (which is what TC had been talking about).So hot potato back at ya.(note:reedited for perhaps greater clarity)[This message has been edited by holmes, 02-29-2004]

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Ahhhhh... Back from the Oscars... Back to a saga as epic as LoTR...

quote:

---

Here's the top half of that message. Sure looks like evidence expressed as a list of rhetorical questions to me.

---

Okay? So you made a mistake? I did not mean it to be rhetorical, though I did mean it to be suggestive of what evidence I could start bringing back to him.Remember I had already told YOU in the post right before this, Message 32, that I was going to get information for you and it was not going to focus primarily on what your link was talking about.And I also told you in my very next post, Message 36, after you jumped the gun and addressed 33 which was not replying to you, that I had still not gathered my evidence yet.So why you felt after post #36, that post #33 represented rhetorical questions outlining the entire issue, as well as the totality of the evidence... what am I supposed to say?Perhaps in trying to disengage from a subject you are not interested in, you made a mistake?

quote:

---

I notice you don't provide any excerpts of me insulting you.

---

I didn't think I had to, but maybe I misunderstood what you meant so here is what you said, and I took as insulting...From Message 35
1) "I do like to think that when I make up my mind that it's from accurate information dispassionately gathered and analyzed."
***I took this as an insult, as it appears to suggest that I have made up my mind from inaccurate information, gathered and analyzed emotionally. Am I wrong?2) "I'd feel pretty sleazy reaching a conclusion based on what you presented."
***I took this as an insult, as it appears to suggest that I have come to a conclusion which a rational person should feel sleazy about. Since I apparently do not, does that not make me sleazy, or that I am wrong for not feeling this way?From Message 37
3) "Discussions about what someone actually meant are pretty pointless. If you want to believe that's an accurate assessment of your post then go ahead, but you might want to follow the suggestion to read your post yourself."
plus
"No one suggested or even hinted that the investigation of the Enron collapse should have limits. I hope, and I'm sure ThingsChange hopes, that investigators follow the evidence wherever it leads."
***I was insulted as these when combined, appeared to tell me I cannot understand what I wrote or someone else wrote... but you can tell whatever anyone else wrote.4) "I found articles recounting the same things you said, some of them using the same tone. I posted a link to a more balanced one from CBS MarketWatch"
***I found this insulting as it appears to suggest that what I was saying had a tone which suggested it was not balanced... of course ignoring that I already said I hadn't given you ANY EVIDENCE or COMPLETE ARGUMENT yet.Did I read something into it?

quote:

---

I'm not avoiding homework or counterevidence, I'm attempting to disengage from the discussion.

---

Yet you were in reality disengaging before I had presented evidence or the full nature of my argument (the issue), and attempting to ride out on a high horse (leaving me as the "sleaze" willing to accept purely emotional evidence and analysis).

quote:

---

You *do* realize, I hope, that this is not the most brilliant topic for a conversation.

---

If the kinks of what happened between us in this thread get worked out, then it will have at least been useful if not brilliant. Maybe it could even stand as an example to others where miscommunication can lead.[This message has been edited by holmes, 03-01-2004]

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

Okay, so you misexpressed yourself.

---

I assume the smiley at the end of that meant it was a joke... I hope that meant it was a joke.

quote:

---

it appeared to me that you were just trying to make it seem like the issue had more layers then it really did, the trademark of the master conspiracist. And that suspicion turned out to be the case when your later summary in Message 44 said pretty the same thing, just reexpressed.

---

So you misread a post, then read into the next. Sweet. And of course your suspicion did not turn out to be the case in the summary of message 44. Just because the list of points is similar that does not mean I had not presented EVIDENCE for those points and THEIR CONTEXT between those two points.And while I am uncertain what you mean by "layers", there were more issues. It was not about the collapse of Enron and it was not merely about formulation of NATIONAL energy policy (which are the Cheney papers).

quote:

---

If that's your idea of how to come across seriously, then I can only ask how one is supposed to tell you apart from a conspiracy specialist.

---

How about by reading the evidence I present? Again, it was not a huge reading assignment, though it did show that there was a lot out there.If my tone turns off people from reading the evidence, well then that really is NOT my problem. Especially in this case... which I'll explain later when I discuss your labelling me a conspiracy theorist.

quote:

---

To me you seem too ready to leap to conclusions... To me it appeared, and still appears, that you were attempting to force interpretations on your posts which did not make sense.

---

I would say the same for you. I would add that you jump to conclusions BEFORE reading anything, and never bother correcting your assumption (you were still mentioning the collapse of Enron well after 34 which should have straightened you out that was NOT what I was discussing).

quote:

---

I'm sure you think you're balanced, but you didn't come across that way. Any argument you might make about balance is contradicted by the incredible persistence and sheer doggedness with which you pursued someone on a topic they weren't interested in discussing, and by the sensitivity you showed toward any rejection of your ideas.

---

The irony here is that this is your response to my telling you why I felt you were insulting me before I had ever presented the evidence. That means your insults came before you told me you were no longer interested, as well as before I ever doggedly pursued anything. I guess you knew this in advance, so you could go ahead and slam be about something else?I feel pretty vindicated that you insulted me, and point out once again that is why I hurried up to actually deliver the evidence sooner than I was planning. You couldn't stop slamming me, even as I asked you to hold your horses.

quote:

---

I had already heard enough. I thought that was clear. You just don't take no for an answer.

---

How Percy? How could you have heard enough when all I had ever done is wrote one post to TC asking what evidence he wanted, and one post to you saying it was about more than you outlined and I would get you evidence later?This is so much BS Percy.The other irony here is that you label me the conspiracy theorist. Heck, all I said is that there was a lot of evidence that suggested a greater investigation was warranted, NOT that I KNEW anything illegal actually did happen. I also showed what people who were interested in Cheney's papers thought they might find. Ooooooo... what a wild man!The irony being not just that I was not advancing anything outlandish, but if you actually looked at the evidence you would notice that YOU are the conspiracy theorist. Somehow you feel confident asserting that what was being mentioned was just usual persecution of a sitting president? For THAT to be TRUE, and the evidence have come from such a mechanism would require a much vaster conspiracy than anything I was talking about.Sometimes the guy screaming nothing is going on, and avoiding looking at evidence to the contrary, is just as big a conspiracy theorist as the guy saying something is going on. Sometimes bad things DO happen.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

Regardless of intent, your Message 33 reads like an enumeration of evidence phrased as rhetorical questions.

---

I've never met a person so focused on a singular post not even made to him, that he ignores every other post surrounding it, including posts directly to him that state I have yet to enumerate my evidence.

quote:

---

I never questioned your evidence. I questioned your conclusions.

---

What conclusion Percy? That there was evidence to merit an investigation? I am still wondering why that is such a strong conclusion to you. But either way I could not tell which you were questioning, said this to you, and also said if it was just the conclusion of illegality then there was no problem.

quote:

---

Ah, the trademark of the master conspiracy theorist - there's always more to delve into.

---

I guess that makes scientists master conspiracy theorists? Perc, all I said is that there were more issues... "layers" suggests greater detail of the same issue which when peeled away will reveal "the truth".

quote:

---

I believe I said at one point that this seemed like the normal amount of harassment of a sitting president. I believe I compared it to White Water, which in the end after all the noise and attention came to very little as far as the Clintons.

---

Yeah, except the ISSUE I AM TALKING ABOUT started BEFORE BUSH WAS PRESIDENT!!! When will you get that through your head?A real energy crisis did occur in CA Perc (before Bush). It really got investigated, eventually by Bush's own appointees (after getting into office), and Enron got fingered as a culprit in energy fraud related to deregulation. Yet during all of this and after, Bush refused to do anything about it (blaming Democrats in CA for mismanagement... which was pretty well proven untrue by the FERC), and allowed Enron (at that point a culprit in energy fraud related to deregulation) into meetings to formulate a national energy policy centering on deregulation!If this does not suggest ANY improprieties to you, particularly when the company and man in question was WELL KNOWN to be one of Bush's largest contributors, then I seriously question your judgement. Whether anything rose to the level of crime is reasonably questionable, and why I said it needs an INVESTIGATION before conclusions can be made. But that their actions were at the very least unethical is pretty much without question, and why an investigation ought to be made.

quote:

---

Yeah, right, mister conspiracy theorist. Look, maybe someday this will turn into the modern day equivalent of Irangate or something and then you can brag about how out in front you were on this issue, but right now this is a mole hill, possibly an anthill.

---

I love your shift to ad hominem now that you have no real cover. How hard is it for you to admit that you were simply wrong?My guess is the energy crisis issue, and energy deregulation issue will not turn into anything very big. Investigations into matters more important than that are being quashed, so why would it make it anywhere?And absolutely, much larger issues have occured in this nation to make those issues very small in the overall scheme of things. That's why I ONLY BROUGHT IT UP WHEN TC DISCUSSED REPUBLICAN INTEREST IN PROSECUTING ENRON!!!! All I did was call bullshit on that remark... that's it.

quote:

---

Your tone is intemperate and immoderate, and it makes your conclusions appear ill-considered.

---

I would prefer the appearance of such, than to actually make conclusions that are ill-considered, as you continue to do. I may be rough around the collar, but at least in this I am right, and you have used NOTHING but ad hominem to show otherwise.

quote:

---

All I did was inquire about what you were vaguely hinting at in one of your messages, and once I confirmed it was Enron-gate I wasn't interested anymore.

---

Your faux disinterest grates on my nerves. You asked what I was hinting at to someone else, and I said it was not the issue that you were hinting at (at least not primarily that), and would get you more info.IF you were DISINTERESTED in the issue, that was the time to reply and say NO THANKS. INSTEAD, you don't reply to that post, and instead reply to my post to someone else in a way that showed NO LACK OF INTEREST AT ALL. You began criticizing what you thought I was talking about!You keep doing this on political topics with me and it IS disingenuous. A simple I am not interested, or no reply at all is the true sign of disinterest. Attacking someone when they are not even talking to you is NOT.

quote:

---

Yeah, right. And what's my theory? Politics as usual.

---

Exactly. Politics as usual. So simple. But how is that any different from a person thinking, corruption as usual?The devil is in the details Percy. Your "politics as usual" becomes a bit more complicated once you start looking at the evidence in the actual timeline. The conspiracy required to have manufactured the events and the evidence would be so massive and complex that the term byzantine would not do it justice. In fact for some reason Ken Lay, George Bush, and their own staffs were either complicit, or duped into the conspiracy.Truly the simplest explanation is GWB looked the other way as deregulated businesses continued to give CA the hotfoot. Granted he may not have understood how bad it was going to end up, and how far his friend was involved or was going to be implicated. During this time of ignoring the crisis and even after some initial implications of wrongdoing (again maybe he didn't realize how bad it was going to get) he included Enron in discussions on energy policy.Your theory... people make stuff up to hurt the president, just seems foolish and conspiratorial in the true sense. You'd rather believe in a vast conspiracy of political rivals and media to invent evidence, than the president made a mistake regarding a friend.YOU are the conspiracy theorist on this one.

quote:

---

I didn't say nothing is going on, though I am screaming, "Help, I'm being pursued by a maniac!"

---

That's my line. I was talking to TC, not you.Then you come in and start attacking me without any let up, even as I repeat I haven't made my point yet. Then you start acting like I was the guy who started our conversation, all the while CONTINUING to lob criticisms at my earlier posts!All for want of the ability to say you made a mistake...

quote:

---

I said there wasn't enough information to draw any conclusions. I said I hoped investigators followed the evidence wherever and to whomever it leads.

---

Yeah that's the same thing I said in Message 32, my first response to your inquiry. It was also what I was saying to TC... with the implication that real investigations into Enron might end up hitting Bush, and wondering if Republicans were really ready to go "wherever and to whomever it leads."Not sure how many times I must say that the ONLY conclusion I am making is that an investigation is warranted, before you get off your high horse.However it is true that the amount of evidence regarding Enron and deregulation issues is more than Republicans had with whitewater, and promises to net more than the indiscretion of a blowjob...Then again Bush and Cheney joining the mile high club aboard Airforce One by having a swordfight in Ken Lay's mouth, might be the only thing capable of drawing the interest of apathetic americans.[This message has been edited by holmes, 03-06-2004]

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

No one else here has indicated any interest. Even the democratic candidates haven't raised this issue.

---

Back to this again? Crash mentioned the deregulation issue. You mentioned Enron in relation to what Crash said. TC said republicans were willing to root out corruption in Enron... I asked if that was true even if it meant it led to Bush?Given the above not only did I NOT mention Enron first, I did not come here saying it should be a prime issue in this year's election. My ONLY point was that if Republicans were interested in a real investigation of Enron, that it would end up back at the steps of the White House.

quote:

---

I wasn't interested in White Water either.

---

For a guy that has NO INTEREST in either subject, you sure do like stating conclusions which require comparisons between them. There is little to no comparison between how the CA energy crisis and the white water case developed.Just to let you know, I didn't care about WW at the time either, though I looked at it towards the end (when Starr said he was nearing some conclusion). So what?

quote:

---

"How could the Clintons be so involved in White Water and be such close friends with the principals and yet not know what was really going on?" But even married people hold secrets from each other, and the ever-so-common political ploy of guilt by association is very popular. I'll wait for more information to come out if you don't mind.

---

You are a very willfully ignorant person. Part of the evidence I linked to was Ken Lay's own writings to Bush, before the crisis, on deregulation. Another part was Bush's own appointees fingering Enron (along with other energy companies) in the CA scam that took advantage of deregulation. Even the PBS bio on Ken Lay pointed to this.It is more than Bush was friends with someone that commited a crime.I guess you'll always have to keep waiting for evidence if you stick your head in the ground when someone says "here is what I am talking about..."

quote:

---

Wrong about what, holmes?

---

That I was ever trying to develop a conspiracy theory, that I ever thought this was a major election issue, and that I intended my post to TC to be the outline of the full case plus evidence... and/or... that you could not have been aware that my post to TC wasn't given that I stated in the post before and after it that I had not laid out a case yet.

quote:

---

How many times do I have to tell you I don't think there's enough information to reach a conclusion. In your more rational moments you say the same thing, like when you say maybe George Bush just made a mistake, but that's just before you tear back into me for not seeing things your way.

---

This is funny. So I say that there isn't enough information to draw a conclusion, but there is enough to give rise to further investigation (which in FACT there is an investigation ongoing because others also believe this including Bush's own appointees), and that is irrational?BUT, when as part of stating my position I say that GB may have just made a mistake, ONLY THEN am I being rational? Your assumption of innocence, or Innocence by Association, is just as fraudulent as guilt by association.My position is we do NOT know if anything illegal was done, but what we DO know warrants further investigation, so a reasonable determination/conclusion can be made.

quote:

---

My faux disinterest? What, you think I'm secretly reading all the articles I can about this? What are you smoking?

---

No, I think you are interested in dismissing any possible case or evidence for a case. That is why you call my position into question, and continue to do so, without any actual regard for evidence presented (and apparently you cannot read because you are soooooo disinterested).If you have no interest in a subject, then you simply would not address it. You would NOT act like you are making some credible rebuttal of the case.

quote:

---

I just commented on your tendency to select a bunch of facts from which you draw your preferred conclusions, from which others aren't apparently permitted to demur.

---

What facts? You said you never looked at them. What conclusions? Every time you state yours it practically sounds like mine.The only difference at this point seems to be that you feel that there may be NO PERSONAL CONNECTION between these men (which has been disproven), and that (apparently) you don't feel an investigation into Bush's dealings with Enron is warranted, because something like this happened to Clinton and didn't pan out.I do believe that anyone looking at the evidence, and not concluding there is the appearance of impropriety is being less than honest. That is on par with feeling a judge failing to recuse himself from a case where he is the defendant's friend has no appearance of impropriety.While appearance does not equal guilt, it does warrant investigation, especially as in this case an investigatuon was already going on and Bush has since been linked BY THE SUSPECT to the case. And remember, people were concerned about it, and it is still in motion. Just because Dem candidates don't mention it as an election issue, does NOT mean it is not an issue in the courts. Which is ALL I WAS SAYING.

quote:

---

And you've already been told, you were participating in *my* subthread, not I yours. You're more than welcome, but please don't keep misstating things because that forces me to set the facts before you again.

---

Bud, I already told you I hadn't realized subthreads were supposed to be exclusive. And despite the fact that it was YOUR subthread, the subject WAS ENRON and where the Republicans were going to take the investigation of Enron. Even if you didn't want it to go there, TC took it there. That's when I addressed him.If the subject I brought up did not interest you, why didn't you just stay out of it? Because it was YOUR subthread? What a laugh.And you wonder why I keep answering your replies? Because you keep misstating things and that forces me to set the facts before you again.

quote:

---

The only thing I think I understand from you is that you're upset because I gave your conspiracy theory short shrift.

---

No I am upset because you keep giving your conspiracy theory such credit. Hell, you've got it twisted into such a paranoid position that I have been hounding you, when you are the one that started this whole thing telling me I shouldn't believe different than you (and you still hadn't heard what I was talking about)!

quote:

---

You were the one who dropped the vague hint leading to my inquiry. And it isn't my fault you're super sensitive about criticism.

---

Why would you inquire about something you have no interest in? Or the flipside of that, what could I possibly have said that included Enron, Ken Lay, and GW that would interest you and so prompt you to inquire?Also, I have only been "supersensitive" about you miscasting my conclusions, my intents, and the nature of my evidence... not about any valid criticism of them. You do realize that you keep telling me what I meant because that is how YOU read something?As long as YOU keep posting this garbage, I will be forced to keep defending myself from it. I'm absolutely beside myself why you are clinging to your fallacious position.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)