Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Four More Years...
ThingsChange
Member (Idle past 5926 days)
Posts: 315
From: Houston, Tejas (Mexican Colony)
Joined: 02-04-2004


Message 31 of 105 (88395)
02-24-2004 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by nator
02-24-2004 1:41 PM


Re: Fat Cat Heaven!
schrafinator writes:
That's human nature.
That's also why we need governments to regulate business. Unregulated business WILL, with rare exceptions, screw it's workers.
I agree with you, but doggone it if I know how to regulate them without killing the golden goose. That may be where Nader has some ideas that the big two parties won't back.
Just as life finds niches via evolution, white-collar crooks and their accountants & lawyers find niches in financials.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by nator, posted 02-24-2004 1:41 PM nator has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 32 of 105 (88399)
02-24-2004 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Percy
02-24-2004 12:35 PM


quote:
You seem pretty certain Bush and Cheney are guilty of wrongdoing. Am I correct in concluding you believe there's been an inappropriate exchange of favors for donations?
Let me get back to you in more detail later. But I will answer this now. 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.
It may come down that the activities they engaged in are unable to be charged as crimes (against set business law), but without question are unethical (and should be added into law if not there).
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.
[This message has been edited by holmes, 02-24-2004]

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Percy, posted 02-24-2004 12:35 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by crashfrog, posted 02-24-2004 2:38 PM Silent H has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 33 of 105 (88400)
02-24-2004 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by ThingsChange
02-24-2004 12:40 PM


quote:
If you have evidence, then present it.
What evidence do you need:
1) That Bush was close friends with Ken Lay, using his personal jet during his pres campaign, and then lying after the Enron scandal that he didn't really know a man he had previously called "Kenny Boy"?
2) That Congress is seeking evidence, which Cheney refuses to hand over, and that it is now going to the SC?
3) That Scalia has refused to recuse himself from the SC case mentioned above, despite going on a hunting trip with Cheney, funded by an energy company that may very well be one of the companies in the very evidence he is to judge whether should be released or not to congress?
4) That when the energy crisis hit CA, and it turned out that the energy companies who "helped out" actually scammed CA, Bush refused to open an investigation/prosecution?
quote:
you are just reeking of speculative conspiracy theories, as usual, when it comes to politics.
By which I gues you are referring to the war on porn (which is well documented and I pointed out where you can find the info), or the disenfranchisement of Florida voters or the actual timeline of events (which can be found by yahooing).
quote:
If I had the time, I would dig-up the counter arguments.
You will find no other counters than the mere assertions you have already presented. You could however (if you find the time to look for counter evidence) just yahoo on the basics of the points I presented. There you will find real evidence.
As I mentioned to Percy, the wrongdoing that Bush and Cheney have with respect to the energy companies (including Enron) may end up being more unethical than illegal, but they are certainly related.
All I asked is if you thought the investigation and prosecutions should move up to them as well since they are obviously connected to each other? We certainly did for Clinton on one small land deal... which only gave us a blowjob. Why should we not pursue possible connections in this, some of the greatest NATIONAL ECONOMIC SCANDALS in recent history.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by ThingsChange, posted 02-24-2004 12:40 PM ThingsChange has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Percy, posted 02-24-2004 4:34 PM Silent H has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 34 of 105 (88401)
02-24-2004 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Silent H
02-24-2004 2:20 PM


Not to mention there's that whole thing where apparently it's totally fine to go duck hunting with a sitting member of the highest court in the land who's going to be ruling on a case in which you're a named litigant. Funny, I always thought that was a little shady, but apparently that's just me.
Oops, I guess Holmes hit that already. My bad.
[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 02-24-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Silent H, posted 02-24-2004 2:20 PM Silent H has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 35 of 105 (88422)
02-24-2004 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Silent H
02-24-2004 2:36 PM


I don't like Bush, but I do like to think that when I make up my mind that it's from accurate information dispassionately gathered and analyzed. I'd feel pretty sleazy reaching a conclusion based on what you presented.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Silent H, posted 02-24-2004 2:36 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Silent H, posted 02-24-2004 5:37 PM Percy has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 36 of 105 (88435)
02-24-2004 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Percy
02-24-2004 4:34 PM


quote:
I'd feel pretty sleazy reaching a conclusion based on what you presented.
Heyyyyyyyy now. Read my post, it pretty well implies if not states directly that people should go out and look for the information... because it is out there. I was not suggesting people believe me just because I say so.
The reason I didn't post any links is because it has been a while since I read them (remember some of this is back around 2000), did not keep them, and some of it I take for granted people already know (like Bush and Ken Lay being pals, until the scandal).
As it stands I asked for you to give me a bit. Perhaps I should have stated it more clearly: please hang on for a bit (by this weekend tops) and I will get you some links regarding the Bush-energy corp connection. Doing a search to refind info for others on this topic is not high on my list when people can look for themselves if they are interested.
I guess I considered my post a point of departure into further research on a topic instead of an end conclusion (regarding the energy thing).

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Percy, posted 02-24-2004 4:34 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Percy, posted 02-24-2004 6:36 PM Silent H has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 37 of 105 (88449)
02-24-2004 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Silent H
02-24-2004 5:37 PM


holmes writes:
Heyyyyyyyy now. Read my post, it pretty well implies if not states directly that people should go out and look for the information... because it is out there. I was not suggesting people believe me just because I say so.
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.
I *did* go out on the Internet before I replied. 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 back in Message 24.
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.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Silent H, posted 02-24-2004 5:37 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Silent H, posted 02-24-2004 9:15 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 38 of 105 (88450)
02-24-2004 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by nator
02-24-2004 1:31 PM


Re: Fat Cat Heaven!
Schraf writes:
Lumping Stewart's insider trading in with Worldcom's and Enron's rape of tens of thousands of workers' retirement funds isn't even close to a fair comparison.
Oh, yes, that's precisely what I was trying to communicate.
Message 15 was a sarcastic jab at Crash with smilie included.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by nator, posted 02-24-2004 1:31 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by crashfrog, posted 02-24-2004 6:54 PM Percy has not replied
 Message 49 by nator, posted 02-25-2004 9:03 AM Percy has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 39 of 105 (88452)
02-24-2004 6:54 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Percy
02-24-2004 6:45 PM


Fat Cat Heaven! (Message 15) was a sarcastic jab at Crash with smilie included.
I'm sure I deserved it. I can only plead forbearance for my youthful indignance of the world's injustices.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Percy, posted 02-24-2004 6:45 PM Percy has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 40 of 105 (88470)
02-24-2004 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Percy
02-24-2004 6:36 PM


quote:
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.
yet
quote:
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.
Yeah... I get the message...
quote:
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
"Same tone"... that's sweet. How about these...
Bush rules out aiding California energy crisis at federal level. He passed the CA energy crisis buck to the state and said it was a result of conservation and not deregulation. Conspiracy theorists might like to take note that this article... pre 9-11... shows Bush setting out hardline against Iraq for WMDs at the same time he's supposed to be talking about energy.
Here's another interesting break down of the situation at its beginning from ABC.
Consumerwatchdog discusses Bush's deregulation blaming and notes the comparison to the 1970's energy crisis that was actually artificial. Could the CA crisis have been manufactured?
Such "biased rags" as Time looked at this possibility.
Same for Salon.
And the unbalanced PBS news organization decided to do some interviews on the Crisis. Note the info under Ken Lay's bio... this is before the Enron collapse, yet we can already see Ken Lay's possible motives in manipulating energy policy in general and CA policy in specific.
Rep. Waxman isn't exactly balanced either... here are some of his reasons for investigating the connections between Enron and Bush energy policy...
But that takes some puzzle work of of going through all of his writings. There is a nice sort of connect the dots overview on this link. I am a bit hard pressed to accept the author's connections of Bush's entire energy policy dealings to the Iraq War(on the evidence provided), but the energy policy issues in CA with Enron and Bush-Cheney are pretty straightforward.[/url]
It also contains more links at the bottom two of which are pretty interesting: Here... and here.
The basic idea is that a group of energy companies (including Enron) began taking advantage of deregulations in energy policies in CA. Through market manipulation they jacked up costs to artificially create an energy crisis (similar to the one in the 1970's). Bush Cheney and Lay (among others) were interested in avoiding regulating energy, despite the gouging which threatened the CA economy itself.
Interestingly Lay, who early on had worried about using a crisis for profit, had eventually been "turned" and was now on board and an active promoter of "free market" control of energy. He was continuing to try and keep policy on this course as a full national policy... this would of course be part of the papers that Cheney is trying to conceal... Lay's connection, and the intent to allow profit to dictate energy policy at the expense of consumers.
After all the money and time invested in the Bush-Cheney ticket, it is pretty clear he had AT LEAST managed to keep the fed gov't out of regulating the CA crisis, and was apparently hoping to solidify future "hands-off" energy policy with others.
But this comes back to your question of what could be in those papers? Here's an interesting rundown of Lay as contributor and connected man with Bush-Cheney. Remember this article was back before the Enron fall and Ken Lay was still able to be talked about (even the fact that he was almost our energy secretary... oh yeah and Bush didn't know him?).
For those not wanting to bother going to this link, here is an excerpt that is supposed to be POSITIVE, yet AFTER what has happened actually sounds ominous...
quote:
(referring to Enron's massive input of money into Bush-Cheney)And what did Enron get out of the deal?
Well, Lay has repeatedly asserted in interviews that there is no quid pro quo in his relationship with Bush.
"Ken Lay and Enron have consistently stood for open access to energy . . . markets," company spokesman Mark Palmer told us yesterday. "What that means is for the marketplace to determine how a scarce resource is allocated."
So it was no surprise when Lay showed up for last week's energy negotiations, first in Washington and then later in Los Angeles, to push the energy marketers' case.
It is only in the light of what followed that the above takes on shall we say conspiratorial overtones. But what followed did happen, and so the light is real and not vain conspiracy theory.
Ken Lay wanted to make sure first in CA and then across the country that those who own energy companies should "determine how a SCARCE resource is allocated". Being the producers they could of course, as has been shown to be the case, determine how "scarce" that resource is.
Is that balanced enough?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Percy, posted 02-24-2004 6:36 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Percy, posted 02-24-2004 9:40 PM Silent H has replied

  
Lizard Breath
Member (Idle past 6696 days)
Posts: 376
Joined: 10-19-2003


Message 41 of 105 (88471)
02-24-2004 9:17 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Dr Jack
02-24-2004 8:34 AM


Re: Military
Would you be for cutting the budget by 90% and maintaining a force adequate to provide boarder defense with short range aircraft and patrol boats instead of the super fleets and large air force that we have now?
If you "quite frankly cut the budget in half", you would get only as much as if you cut it by 90%. If you take an expensive Harley Davidson and say I don't want to pay that much for it and you cut the price in half, they give you half the bike. Now you could keep the gas tank, tires, frame and seat and still have the nicest looking bike in the hood, but you don't have a functional bike for what it was designed to do. So if you don't want to pay that much for the Harley, buy a Vespa moped and at least you have something functional. It won't cruise you down the highway at 90 mph and it won't command much respect, but it will get your tie dyes, flip flops and granola to campus quite dependably every day.
Now, I'll ask you again, would you be in favor of cutting the defense budget by 90% and maintaining a boarder defense patrol supremely suited for that task, or do you want to pay 5 times more and have a military not capable of doing what your politics is creating?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Dr Jack, posted 02-24-2004 8:34 AM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Dr Jack, posted 02-25-2004 4:54 AM Lizard Breath has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 42 of 105 (88474)
02-24-2004 9:40 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Silent H
02-24-2004 9:15 PM


holmes writes:
Is that balanced enough?
A point of view? You got it! Balance? Uh...
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Silent H, posted 02-24-2004 9:15 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Phat, posted 02-24-2004 11:00 PM Percy has not replied
 Message 44 by Silent H, posted 02-25-2004 12:21 AM Percy has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 43 of 105 (88487)
02-24-2004 11:00 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Percy
02-24-2004 9:40 PM


When I was growing up, I knew only one thing about Republicans and Democrats. One group was represented by a fat elephant and the other group was a braying donkey. Later, I noticed that the democrats were mostly younger people who had no money except for the Kennedys. The Republicans, by contrast, were always owners of businesses and people that looked like the man in Monopoly.
Now, I see it like this: Republicans have a power base concentrated in material wealth,business,and money. Democrats have a power base concentrated in political ideology,education, and money. If the Republican power base were torpedoed by a stray WMD, the wealth would transfer into more hands. This would make the Democrats a solid favorite for leadership. The more that people suffer, the stronger the Democratic statesman becomes. Perhaps I am a bit oversimplistic, but Republican ideology is the Religious right, whereas Democratic ideology is secular humanism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Percy, posted 02-24-2004 9:40 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by nator, posted 02-25-2004 9:11 AM Phat has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 44 of 105 (88491)
02-25-2004 12:21 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Percy
02-24-2004 9:40 PM


quote:
A point of view? You got it! Balance? Uh...
Seriously, after reading through the links you feel that there are still legitimate questions whether:
1) Bush knew Ken Lay before the fall of Enron, and that he was a major contributor to the Bush-Cheney campaign.
2) Ken Lay and Enron were involved with the CA energy crisis and made a large profit during the crisis, which the FERC has determined was likely due to manipulation rather than an actual absence of resources.
3) That Ken Lay appealed to the white house to keep fed price controls off of CA utilities.
4) That Ken Lay had been trying to help (along with others) formulate a White House energy policy where free markets control scarce resources (in this case energy supplies).
5) That it is POSSIBLE the papers which Cheney is trying to keep under wraps might reveal the initimate contacts with Ken Lay and other energy companies involved in the CA energy scandals, and so embarass the White House.
If the above are true, which I think the links backed up, then the case is laid out WHY the papers are being sought, and it was not isolated to just concerns over future policy making, but dealings with those that had already been implicated in a scandal, which the White House refused to touch at the time.
If you think the above points were not made, then I would be interested in knowing what was lacking, or what bias they all held such that you could not trust the evidence they presented on those points.
[This message has been edited by holmes, 02-25-2004]

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Percy, posted 02-24-2004 9:40 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Percy, posted 02-25-2004 10:02 AM Silent H has replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 45 of 105 (88494)
02-25-2004 2:48 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by ThingsChange
02-24-2004 1:03 PM


Re: Military
quote:
The politics of world power is mainly conducted behind closed doors.
Given that behind those closed doors sit the supposedly democratically elected representatives of their respective people (under the guise of support for freedom and human rights), that your statement is true should bother you and everyone else.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by ThingsChange, posted 02-24-2004 1:03 PM ThingsChange has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024