Enron Tapes!!!

[strandinthewind]

And once again and for the record, I think anyone who votes for Bush is out of their minds. Although I think all politcians are bribe taking lying jerks, I think the issue for me against W is W clearly is beholden to the fundamentalist Christians of this country and he has to pay the piper. They want to est. a Theocracy, which scares me a whole lot more than Iraq, Enron, etc., COMBINED.

So, I say all bets/votes should be placed on Kerry, even though he has enabled some of W's worst non-theological autrocities.

[The Tower]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

In the end, whenever I read things like W never met Ken Lay or similar things naming only W, I read that as the same thing as saying W and every R are the worst people in the world and no D would ever do what they do. Perhaps that is not what is meant, but that is the way it comes across, esp. since W is always named alone and no high powered observation is EVER turned on Clinton, who, like W, had a duty to catch the crooks on his watch, or Le Dauphin of the D party, Kerry, who had similar ties. All I am saying is W is a jerk and clearly guilty of what he is accussed, but so are these other people and I think it is fair to point that out. So, if you want to call that "But, when all else fails, blame Bubba" go right ahead

I've never understood the "well, he did it, too" defense. Bush has to answer for his actions regardless of what any predecessors may have or may not have done.

So, if Bush gets a blow job in the White House he can say "well, Clinton did it". If someone complains about the ****tier aspects of the Telecommunications Act (Clear Channel, hello?!?), does Bush just say "Well, Clinton did all that..." and leave it there?? Clinton isn't the f**king President anymore! Clinton can't do anything about it now.

I just don't understand why this administration refuses to take responsibility for ADMINISTRATING the government! If there is something "wrong"- fix it, dammit. There is no accountability, no responsibility, no nothing.

Here's a perfect example of how f**ked up this administration is:

Bush claims a major victory in Afghanistan. The "victory" in Afghanistan was accomplised using the military apparatus designed and maintained by primarily eight years of the Clinton administration.

Bush SINGLEHANDEDLY takes the U.S. into war and the occupation of Iraq. Again, most of the military apparatus was designed and maintained by the Clinton administration.

BushCo would like us to believe that Afghanistan was his success and Iraq is Clinton's failure, when neither is true for so many reasons.

I really enjoyed Clinton's Presidency. Yeah, he screwed up a lot of things, but overall I think he did a good job.

Do I hold Clinton responsible for Enron's sleaziness? Yes, to a certain extent. However, Enron totally f**ked over my state while BUSH was administering the nation- and he did NOTHING to stop them. He ACTIVELY chose to let Enron, Duke and all those others pieces of **** rip off BILLIONS of dollars from my state's taxpayers. I have a feeling that if the election had not been stolen from Gore, that he would have done something about all this bull****.

Bush is the worst President we have ever, ever had. Worse than Nixon, worse than Hoover, worse than Harding, worse than Pierce, worse than Buchanan, worse than Reagan. The WORST! There are so many things that this administration has done to screw up the country that will take years and decades to fix. UGH!!!!! Just thinking about it all makes me sick.

Anyone who would defend Bush or vote for Bush will deserve exactly what they get for allowing him to govern this country. Your vote will hold you accountable when history looks back on these dark ages.

[strandinthewind]

Tower - I agree with you that W should be held accountable for all of his mistakes, and there have been plenty. But, to say "Do I hold Clinton responsible for Enron's sleaziness? Yes, to a certain extent" is just wrong. Enron collapsed under W's administration due to the years of fraud under Clinton's administration. What could W have done to save Enron - I submit nothing because the house of cards was already built inder Clinton's watch and it was already beginning to fall when W took office. What could Clinton have done to stop Enron? I submit alot. He, though his DOJ, could have investigated Enron's highly suspect meteoric rise. Yet, he did not. So, to say W as Pres. is to blame is just wrong - there is nothing he could have done to stop the fall of that company. Now, W as the gov. of Texas is another story But, once again, the time periods overlap and we find W and Clinton in bed together and millions lost out. So, my point is not to excuse W for anything bad that he did. My point is Gov. W and Pres. Clinton are both equally to blame for letting Enron get away with what it did for years. Then, we have all of the other fradulent companies (Tyco, MCI, Global Crossing, etc.) that ran unchecked during Clinton's administration. The fall of these companies was due to fraudulent activites that the Clinton Administration did not catch. I mean I can see one company being smart enough to get away with something, but here we have FAR more than that. So, I say praise Clinton all you want, but the facts are corp. greed and fraud ran essentially unchecked in his administration. The only significant thing they ever did was the Microsoft fiasco, which, if true, was a drop in the bucket compared to the failures of just Enron and MCI, much less the other giants that imploded due to fraud.

Once again, ALL I am saying is Pres. W could have done nothing to stop the failures of MCI, Enron, etc. the seeds of that greed were planted and ran unchecked during Clinton's administration. So, I do not see how I am, as you and Dissention assert, excusing W and instread falsely blaming Clinton. I guess you all think Clinton rightly turned a bind eye to this fraud and that Pres. W had a magic wand that would somehow magically save these already failing companies but chose not to wave it so millions would be ruined

And, as was completely discussed in another thread, if W single handedly, as you assert, led this country into a war with Iraq, then I assert and have the facts to back it up, that Clinton fully supported him and Kerry gave him the license to do it. So, IMO they are ALL in bed together again and millions of peoples' lives have been ruined. Yet, the D's never are able to turn their high powered observation on themselves and their former past leader and their heir apparent. To do do is just beyond them for some reason. It is not, however, beyond me

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

To hear you say it, all was fine and dandy under Clinton until the day he left office

Actually it went to **** a few days after the election was decided by the Supremes. Look it up.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

So, I say all bets/votes should be placed on Kerry, even though he has enabled some of W's worst non-theological autrocities.

Same bad argument, different Democrat.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Actually it went to **** a few days after the election was decided by the Supremes. Look it up.

But WHY did it do that? You cannot be seriously saying the economy suddenly and without warning went to hell solely because W was elected and big business was scared of his policies. Again, the economy failed because HUGE corporations imploded based on fraudulent activity that ran unchecked under Clinton's watch and that implosion cost the US enonomy millions of jobs and trillions of dollars. I mean I get the whole lets' hold W accountable rhetoric, but Clinton's failures must come into the discussion when you guys make such factually incorrect statements as the economy was fine and dandy under Clinton and suddenly went to hell solely because W was elected. I mean do youall REALLY believe that

[gldstwmn]

[QUOTE=strandinthewind The only significant thing they ever did was the Microsoft fiasco, which, if true, was a drop in the bucket compared to the failures of just Enron and MCI, much less the other giants that imploded due to fraud.

[/QUOTE]

Microsoft has a worldwide monopoly and it shouldn't be investigated? It should be noted that any further investigation of Microsoft was dropped when the current administration took office.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Same bad argument, different Democrat.

I do not understand, explain.

Are you seriously arguing that Kerry has clean hands in the war in Iraq? I mean come on, he called for and passed a bill calling for military action in 1998 because SH was in material breach of his duty to demonstrate he no longer had WMD. Then, Kerry voted to give W blanket authority to get rid of SH. Then, on his website, Kerry does not disagree with the invasion of Iraq, he merely gripes that W missed an oppotunity to exploit the world's grief over 9/11 and get together a coallition of many more than W could muster to invade Iraq. Yet, the crazy liberals blindly defend Kerry and villfy W for doing the thing - the constantly cry out "it was solely W's war" "it was all for oil" - well then Kerry wanted to go to war for oil in 1998

[strandinthewind]

[QUOTE=gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind The only significant thing they ever did was the Microsoft fiasco, which, if true, was a drop in the bucket compared to the failures of just Enron and MCI, much less the other giants that imploded due to fraud.

[/QUOTE

Microsoft has a worldwide monopoly and it shouldn't be investigated? It should be noted that any further investigation of Microsoft was dropped when the current administration took office.

My point is the fraud in the other companies was far easier to prove and effected FAR many more lives. The Microsoft thing was a weak case to begin with and they stretched it out over many years. It was a fiasco. Once again, the Clinton administration essentially let a corporation, this time Microsoft, run free and when they tried to catch it, they made a mess of it.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

But WHY did it do that? You cannot be seriously saying the economy suddenly and without warning went to hell solely because W was elected and big business was scared of his policies.

Just look at the stock market and what happened as soon as that was decided. It was a vote of no confidence for Bush. The Supremes deciding the election didn't help matters either. As I said, look it up.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I do not understand, explain.

Republican bad because Democrat bad. Ug.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Just look at the stock market and what happened as soon as that was decided. It was a vote of no confidence for Bush. The Supremes deciding the election didn't help matters either. As I said, look it up.

I not only have looked it up, I lived through it and lost money. Once again, stock prices are based on future earnings, which are tied to growth potential. When, Enron, a Big Board company failed, it took the wind out of the already failing Dow. I just do not see how you all do not get that and istead assert the foolish and factually incorrect premise that the market failed a vote of no confidence for W. Do you have any economic report that supports that theory?

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I do not understand, explain.

Are you seriously arguing that Kerry has clean hands in the war in Iraq? I mean come on, he called for and passed a bill calling for military action in 1998 because SH was in material breach of his duty to demonstrate he no longer had WMD. Then, Kerry voted to give W blanket authority to get rid of SH. Then, on his website, Kerry does not disagree with the invasion of Iraq, he merely gripes that W missed an oppotunity to exploit the world's grief over 9/11 and get together a coallition of many more than W could muster to invade Iraq. Yet, the crazy liberals blindly defend Kerry and villfy W for doing the thing - the constantly cry out "it was solely W's war" "it was all for oil" - well then Kerry wanted to go to war for oil in 1998

You're really reaching for it today. We're not even talking about Kerry and Iraq. The title of this thread is Enron Tapes. All you've been doing lately on any of these threads is spewing Clinton/Kerry guilty=Bush okay. It's a bunch of ****, you know it and is not getting you anywhere with your point-which is all over the place I might add. The Bush enabling defense ain't gonna work with me. As I said, please defend him in the context of his own actions. Make him accountable without placing blame elsewhere.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Republican bad because Democrat bad. Ug.

I am not asserting the R is bad because the D is bad. I am asserting they are ALL bad. I mean are you saying Kerry is not in any way to blame for the war in Iraq? Come On

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

You're really reaching for it today. We're not even talking about Kerry and Iraq. The title of this thread is Enron Tapes. All you've been doing lately on any of these threads is spewing Clinton/Kerry guilty=Bush okay. It's a bunch of ****, you know it and is not getting you anywhere with your point-which is all over the place I might add. The Bush enabling defense ain't gonna work with me. As I said, please defend him in the context of his own actions. Make him accountable without placing blame elsewhere.

I AM NOT SAYING BUSH IS BAD BECAUSE THE D'S MADE HIM THAT WAY

ALL I am saying is blaming the Bush presidency for the failure of Enron is just flat out wrong because the fraud that caused the failure of Enron happened while W and his predessor were Gov. of Texas and while Clinton was Pres. How is that enabling anyone. It is stating the facts.

AND - please show me where I have said W is okay. I have not.