• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

About that Walter Reed maintenance crew...

Econ101

Well-known member
Steve said:
NeoCon:
I can't help you haven't as much experience or knowledge in movies

if it gets through to your simple mind,.I guess it works for you...

You talk of growing up yet insult others who correct you falsehoods...you tell others to get real but your source is a worn out DVD...and the rosie...

as for the rest of your whine...please save it for your other liberal friends...I'm sure while your watching Rosie she will inform you how to live your pathetic life....

Hey, the analogy was a simple one you might could understand. I am sorry you can't. By the way, I don't think I have a dvd of Forest Gump and didn't watch it but once. I would greatly recommend it to you. I was a good wholesome movie and Tom Hanks did a good job in it. He did a real good job in that WW2 movie where he was sent to get a soldier who lost his brother or something like that. There was some kind of rule in the war where if you were the only son of a family and your siblings died in the war, that you weren't required to be in the front. They took you out of it. Another good Tom Hanks movie I would recommend to you.

I don't have a lot of liberal friends. Even my democrat friends are pretty darn conservative. I asked some of them some time ago why they were democrats and they said it was because they thought democrats looked out more for the little guy while republican looked after the rich and corporations. Given the Enron fiasco and the policies the republicans have pushed when in power for corporations, I would have to agree with them. They don't look at abortion as an issue, nor do they look at homosexuality as an issue. Some of those issues belong to the liberal democrats in the northeast. They are also against government spending and don't care a lot for welfare and that sort of thing. Most democrats in our area are pretty conservative. After looking at the last two presidents, you would have to say that the democrats have held spending down while the republicans have spent more, given tax breaks to the wealthiest, and borrowed much more that our children will have to repay. You are just stuck on the label. Most people are not. You seem to follow the label no matter what goes on and most democrats I know look more at the issues. I guess I would agree with them much more than a blind follower who can only say that everything the republicans do is fine because of the name republican or conservative. They do a lot of things that are neither real republican nor conservative. You seem to look over these things.

Again, I hope that some day you will open your eyes and stop blindly following. Your gripe about "liberals" being against the military is just getting a little tiring and totally inaccurate.

Have a good night, stevie girl. Stop the name calling and I will too.
 

Steve

Well-known member
NeoCon-1
Given the Enron fiasco

Might want to check your facts....

Enron Crimes happened under Clinton....and was caught and Prosecuted under Bush.



After a series of scandals involving irregular accounting procedures bordering on fraud, perpetrated throughout the 1990s,

In August of 2000, Enron's stock price hit its highest value of $90. At this point Enron executives, who possessed the inside information on the hidden losses, began to sell their stock. At the same time, the general public and Enron's investors were told to buy the stock.

Now when did Bush take over.....George Walker Bush is the 43rd and current President of the United States, inaugurated on January 20, 2001

Just another False accusation...Taken right from the liberal playbook
 

Mike

Well-known member
Econ: I asked some of them some time ago why they were democrats and they said it was because they thought democrats looked out more for the little guy while republican looked after the rich and corporations. Given the Enron fiasco and the policies the republicans have pushed when in power for corporations, I would have to agree with them.

I've got to throw the BS flag here too.

The "Great Society" Democrats was/is perpetuating a goverment welfare system that leans closely towards "Socialism".

It just SEEMS they are for the little guy but in all actuality they are taking that "little guy" down a road that we don't need to be traveling.

I do agree that big corporations have too much influence but which is worse? Having all the little guys working for those big corps, or the goverment taking care of them?

It's a question I would really like to know the answer to. :???:
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Mike said:
Econ: I asked some of them some time ago why they were democrats and they said it was because they thought democrats looked out more for the little guy while republican looked after the rich and corporations. Given the Enron fiasco and the policies the republicans have pushed when in power for corporations, I would have to agree with them.

I've got to throw the BS flag here too.

The "Great Society" Democrats was/is perpetuating a goverment welfare system that leans closely towards "Socialism".

It just SEEMS they are for the little guy but in all actuality they are taking that "little guy" down a road that we don't need to be traveling.

I do agree that big corporations have too much influence but which is worse? Having all the little guys working for those big corps, or the goverment taking care of them?

It's a question I would really like to know the answer to. :???:

Hey, Mike, you are right. These are the reasons the democrats around here give. I didn't say they were right on everything, I was just stating what they thought about the parties. Being in the south, you know that for a loooong time---too long, we had a welfare state. Roosevelt may have had a good policy on some of these programs during the time he was in--after and during the depression, but over time, they basically dwarfed into constituencies the democrats played up to. During the time of Roosevelt, we had a real problem with the economy. Hoover couldn't get it started so Roosevelt made up a lot of public works projects that infused money into the economy that helped get the economy going. It didn't really recover to its fullest until the WWII years when Europe bought a lot of things from us. Even the things they didn't pay back through the lend lease program and war efforts we paid for helped jump start the economy by infusing money into it and getting the velocity of money going again.

Too many government programs turn into constituencies the parties cater to. This is one of the critiques of the military industrial complex, along with the wars it encourages. This is mainly a republican constituency. You only have to look at the private contracts in Iraq to see the truth in this regard.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Steve said:
NeoCon-1
Given the Enron fiasco

Might want to check your facts....

Enron Crimes happened under Clinton....and was caught and Prosecuted under Bush.



After a series of scandals involving irregular accounting procedures bordering on fraud, perpetrated throughout the 1990s,

In August of 2000, Enron's stock price hit its highest value of $90. At this point Enron executives, who possessed the inside information on the hidden losses, began to sell their stock. At the same time, the general public and Enron's investors were told to buy the stock.

Now when did Bush take over.....George Walker Bush is the 43rd and current President of the United States, inaugurated on January 20, 2001

Just another False accusation...Taken right from the liberal playbook

Enron wasn't caught by bush; the govt. had nothing to do with it. Enron collapsed on its own fraud.

Both dems. and republicans fed heavily at that trough. Lay fed more repubs. than dems.
 

Steve

Well-known member
NeoCon-1
Enron wasn't caught by bush; the govt. had nothing to do with it. Enron collapsed on its own fraud.

Both dems. and republicans fed heavily at that trough. Lay fed more repubs. than dems.

So it is okey to Blame Bush for Enron...despite the facts?

Because Lay donated to both Parties,..

See this is the Big difference between you and Me...I do see both sides....and can accept the facts...

I neither Blame Clinton nor his inept appointed Prosecuters, nor Do I accredit Bush "with" catching him....I distinctly used the word Under....for a reason...because Enron fiddled under Clinton's nose,..but was brought to Justice under Bush....But most of all it was Lay and Enron's Greed and Pride that led them to fraud.,..not Bush.,..

No wonder I call you a liberal all the time.,..even when faced with the Facts,....you still must Blame Bush.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Steve said:
NeoCon-1
Enron wasn't caught by bush; the govt. had nothing to do with it. Enron collapsed on its own fraud.

Both dems. and republicans fed heavily at that trough. Lay fed more repubs. than dems.

So it is okey to Blame Bush for Enron...despite the facts?

Because Lay donated to both Parties,..

See this is the Big difference between you and Me...I do see both sides....and can accept the facts...

I neither Blame Clinton nor his inept appointed Prosecuters, nor Do I accredit Bush "with" catching him....I distinctly used the word Under....for a reason...because Enron fiddled under Clinton's nose,..but was brought to Justice under Bush....But most of all it was Lay and Enron's Greed and Pride that led them to fraud.,..not Bush.,..

No wonder I call you a liberal all the time.,..even when faced with the Facts,....you still must Blame Bush.


You are so stupid, steve. I never said Bush was to blame for Enron. Never, never, never. You just made that up so you could argue against your own statement.

Enron imploded because of the fraud in Enron. They cooked the books, and Arthur Anderson helped them. The fact remains that they sought and got political favor from BOTH parties. It was another case of corporate america buying political oversight. Both Clinton and Bush administrations have caved to these forces for political contributions. It has become all too common in D.C. politics and a big factor in who actually wins elections. Big money is buying our democracy.

Make ti a conservative/liberal issue if you want. You will be missing the big picture, but you seem to continually want to paint your own picture of reality and force it on everyone else.

Stop having the big head. Art (pictures painted) are to be interpreted by the viewer, not forced by the artist. The fact that you continually do this is a little concerning to me. Maybe you can't deal with facts in any other way.

And by the way, justice was not served completely in the Enron scandal. A lot of investors and a lot of employees paid the price and were never compensated. The political donations to the politicians were not paid back to the employee pension plan. In addition, it showed how allowing a utility to be deregulated can cause all sorts of problems when they don't have to follow the rules anymore. So much for deregulation and trusting our corporate leaders to do the right thing. A certain percent of them will follow the money instead of their ethics, no matter how much their money seemingly buys good will (Enron and others like Enron--Tyson for example--try to buy good will with their philanthropy). More often than not, the purchase of good will is a calculated decision to promote a perception.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Money & Politics News

Search • RSS Feed
For Immediate Release:
1/24/2002
Contact:
Adam Lioz, (202) 546-9707
Steve Blackledge, 916-448-4516
Gary Kalman, 202-546-9707 x311
U.S. PIRG
Missing the Forest for the Trees

Statement of U.S. PIRG Democracy Advocate Adam Lioz on the Enron Debacle

In the wake of the collapse of Enron and the disclosure of the company's political contributions and close ties to prominent government officials, many reports have been focused on the prospect of untoward-or even illegal-behavior on the part of elected officials. Many are calling for officeholders to return Enron contributions, and some officials have already done so.

The implication is that otherwise objective Representatives, Senators, senior Bush Administration officials, and even the President himself may have provided inappropriate favors for Enron in exchange for large campaign contributions.

Investigators sleuthing for evidence of personal corruption in this case may or may not find what they're looking for. But those that end their search there are missing the forest for the trees.

Focusing on the sale of access to or influence on decision-makers masks a much more profound influence of wealth on our political system. It is much more instructive to consider the effects of money on elections than on politicians. The biggest scandal here is not personal corruption-it's systemic corruption. It's how the very wealthy decide who gets to run for office in the first place-and then who wins. Through large contributions, Enron, Andersen, and their executives helped put their supporters into office.

Recent reporting has brought to light one example of Enron's successful control of elections. Brody Mullins in Congress Daily has demonstrated that Kenneth Lay recruited Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee to challenge former Rep. Craig Washington in 1994.* Lay took issue with Washington's vote against NAFTA and sought to replace him with someone more sympathetic to his "free trade" principles. According to Mullins, "Enron and its employees pumped $24,000 into Jackson Lee's campaign, helping her raise nearly $600,000-three times as much as Washington raised for his previous reelection." The result was an overwhelming victory for Jackson Lee in the Democratic primary and an easy win in the general election. This is a perfect example of how large, early hard money contributions are decisive in most elections.

Representative Jackson Lee might never have granted any access to any Enron lobbyist, or returned a single phone call. However, as a result of their political contributions, Enron was able to change the vote of the 18th district of Texas from an anti-NAFTA position to a pro-NAFTA position. Their money did buy the result they wanted, even though there may never have been a quid pro quo with Representative Jackson Lee.

Likewise, the $1.2 million in soft money to the Republican party and the $113,800 that Enron gave directly to the George W. Bush campaign played a role in determining the outcome of the presidential election. President Bush and Vice President Cheney may not have behaved any differently due to Enron's contributions, but they might not be in office at all had they not received them.

This is why the campaign finance system taints every member of Congress and the White House. While each individual representative may hold true to his or her own position and not feel at all "compromised" in terms of his or her own personal integrity, none can dispute that campaign contributions got him or her elected in the first place. In the case of Enron, 259 members of Congress won their seats in part because Enron found their positions palatable to its corporate agenda.**

Reformers who merely call for members to give back their contributions are missing the larger point. Much of the damage has already been done. The impact of the contribution happened long ago at the ballot box, and this cannot be undone.

Unfortunately, the efforts of Shays-Meehan supporters are misplaced. The legislation takes aim at the problem of personal corruption, but by doubling individual contributions limits, strengthens the stranglehold of wealthy executives-like those at Enron and Andersen-on our political system as a whole.

Exchanging a partial soft money ban for increased hard money contribution limits is like throwing the baby out with the bath water Congress must hold the line on contribution limits and reject this unholy compromise...or they will truly be missing the forest for the trees.

Those that sense something is afoul with our campaign finance system are correct. However, the stench isn't coming from a few bad actors trading favors for contributions. The whole system is rotten when moneyed interests control our elections through the use of hard and soft money campaign contributions.

U.S. PIRG is the national lobby office for the state Public Interest Research Groups. PIRGs are non-profit, non-partisan public interest advocacy organizations.

* Mullins, Brody. "NAFTA Issue Prompted Enron Support for Jackson Lee," Congress Daily. January 15, 2002.
** Center for Responsive Politics: 71 current Senators and 188 current House members have received Enron contributions.

[Previous] [Next]
 

Steve

Well-known member
Okey,..you didn't say "you blamed Bush"....

on that I stand corrected....you just blame republicans...

BTW,... Bush is a republican.

Gees,.. your pathetic

I am done,..you may go back under your rock...and back to your world with Rosie...and your DVD collection...
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Steve said:
Okey,..you didn't say "you blamed Bush"....

on that I stand corrected....you just blame republicans...

BTW,... Bush is a republican.

Gees,.. your pathetic

I am done,..you may go back under your rock...and back to your world with Rosie...and your DVD collection...

Okay, where did I say I blamed republicans? Surely if the management at Enron and the accountants at AA who were supposed to be doing there jobs were both republican and democrats. I guess you could say I blamed republicans, but then you would only get the answer half right.

I sure wish you would use your whole brain instead of just half of it. I don't like combating someone who is disabled. I would say you are pathetic, but hey, you might just be disabled.
 

Latest posts

Top