Law enforcement doesn't investigate crimes only after everyone else knows about them - they investigate after they themselves know about them.
The Bush admin has proudly said that Lay asked for a financial bailout, but was refused. And Lindsey, the former Enron employee and top economic advisor to Bush, wrote a study about Enron's financial troubles. So they knew of Enron's financial difficulties before the rest of us.
So why didn't they initiate an investigation at that time? </strong><hr></blockquote>
And why didn't somebody investigate Apple when it was in trouble a few years bacK? Because financial difficulties are not evidence per se of wrongdoing.
BRussell, nothing on your list of things Bush did on behalf of Enron have anything to do with the collapse of the company. They just don't. And many of the things you listed aren't about Enron specifically but about the way the admin thinks about these matters in general. For example, if you think Cheney needed Ken Lay's input before he opposed price controls in California, you're on crack.
<strong>And why didn't somebody investigate Apple when it was in trouble a few years bacK? Because financial difficulties are not evidence per se of wrongdoing.
BRussell, nothing on your list of things Bush did on behalf of Enron have anything to do with the collapse of the company.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I haven't heard anyone accuse Bush of causing Enron to collapse. No one has even criticized Enron themselves simply for going bankrupt - it was the fact that they (allegedly) illegally tried to cover it up.
I'm suggesting that the Bush admin participated in Enron's cover-up of their financial status, which allowed them to screw their employees longer and harder. Anyone aware of Enron's true financial condition was either participating in or hiding illegal actions.
And Bush helping Enron cover up their financial status was part of a more general pattern of giving them special help and access for all that campaign money.
[quote]For example, if you think Cheney needed Ken Lay's input before he opposed price controls in California, you're on crack.<hr></blockquote>
If they are so against price controls independent of Enron's influence, why have they allowed them now?
<strong>I'm suggesting that the Bush admin participated in Enron's cover-up of their financial status, which allowed them to screw their employees longer and harder. Anyone aware of Enron's true financial condition was either participating in or hiding illegal actions.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
No that's wrong. If, for example, Bush knew Enron was having trouble, maybe because they asked for help, what's Bush supposed to do? Go on TeeVee and say "Enron is in trouble"? That's insane. How would anyone outside of Enron and AA know they were cooking the books? In fact is was Clinton that allowed them to hide debt over seas but I know you don't want to talk about that!
[quote]Originally posted by BRussell:
<strong>
If they are so against price controls independent of Enron's influence, why have they allowed them now?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well see they haven't. That's your ignorance showing through. You see the regulation board that deals with these issue is independant of the White House. Or at least is supposed to be.
[quote]In recent days we've been reading stories of not just politicians but also writers and pundits paid huge sums by Enron in a brazen, blatant attempt to distort their judgments and disrupt their truth-telling roles. As I have read of these payments, my fists have clenched in righteous anger, I have pounded the table in fury and cried out, How come Enron never bribed me!
Not one cent from Enron, never even expenses to a "conference" in Nice or Steamboat or similar hardship location. Set aside my obvious professional jealousy that when Enron schemed to buy writers' influence its thoughts turned to Bill Kristol ($100,000) and Paul Krugman ($50,000) rather than yours truly. Set aside whether such disbursements accomplished anything. (Kristol would have favored most Enron positions in any case, and Krugman has been harshly critical of the company despite cashing its check.) What really frosts me is that I've been at the forefront of writing about the very issues on which Enron sought to purchase influence...<hr></blockquote>
Comments
I would bitch for 6 years... those guys need to be executed along with MANY others.
Mac Guru
<strong>But Bush had nothing to do with that.
*must* remember poster... special olympics... ARGH!</strong><hr></blockquote>
So much "wit" and yet you fail to refute what I wrote.
<strong>
Law enforcement doesn't investigate crimes only after everyone else knows about them - they investigate after they themselves know about them.
The Bush admin has proudly said that Lay asked for a financial bailout, but was refused. And Lindsey, the former Enron employee and top economic advisor to Bush, wrote a study about Enron's financial troubles. So they knew of Enron's financial difficulties before the rest of us.
So why didn't they initiate an investigation at that time? </strong><hr></blockquote>
And why didn't somebody investigate Apple when it was in trouble a few years bacK? Because financial difficulties are not evidence per se of wrongdoing.
BRussell, nothing on your list of things Bush did on behalf of Enron have anything to do with the collapse of the company. They just don't. And many of the things you listed aren't about Enron specifically but about the way the admin thinks about these matters in general. For example, if you think Cheney needed Ken Lay's input before he opposed price controls in California, you're on crack.
<strong>And why didn't somebody investigate Apple when it was in trouble a few years bacK? Because financial difficulties are not evidence per se of wrongdoing.
BRussell, nothing on your list of things Bush did on behalf of Enron have anything to do with the collapse of the company.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I haven't heard anyone accuse Bush of causing Enron to collapse. No one has even criticized Enron themselves simply for going bankrupt - it was the fact that they (allegedly) illegally tried to cover it up.
I'm suggesting that the Bush admin participated in Enron's cover-up of their financial status, which allowed them to screw their employees longer and harder. Anyone aware of Enron's true financial condition was either participating in or hiding illegal actions.
And Bush helping Enron cover up their financial status was part of a more general pattern of giving them special help and access for all that campaign money.
[quote]For example, if you think Cheney needed Ken Lay's input before he opposed price controls in California, you're on crack.<hr></blockquote>
If they are so against price controls independent of Enron's influence, why have they allowed them now?
<strong>I'm suggesting that the Bush admin participated in Enron's cover-up of their financial status, which allowed them to screw their employees longer and harder. Anyone aware of Enron's true financial condition was either participating in or hiding illegal actions.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
No that's wrong. If, for example, Bush knew Enron was having trouble, maybe because they asked for help, what's Bush supposed to do? Go on TeeVee and say "Enron is in trouble"? That's insane. How would anyone outside of Enron and AA know they were cooking the books? In fact is was Clinton that allowed them to hide debt over seas but I know you don't want to talk about that!
[quote]Originally posted by BRussell:
<strong>
If they are so against price controls independent of Enron's influence, why have they allowed them now?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well see they haven't. That's your ignorance showing through. You see the regulation board that deals with these issue is independant of the White House. Or at least is supposed to be.
Department of complaints.
<a href="http://slate.msn.com/?id=2061454"; target="_blank">Enron Envy</a>
Where's my bribe?
By Gregg Easterbrook
Posted Friday, February 1, 2002, at 8:17 AM PT
[quote]In recent days we've been reading stories of not just politicians but also writers and pundits paid huge sums by Enron in a brazen, blatant attempt to distort their judgments and disrupt their truth-telling roles. As I have read of these payments, my fists have clenched in righteous anger, I have pounded the table in fury and cried out, How come Enron never bribed me!
Not one cent from Enron, never even expenses to a "conference" in Nice or Steamboat or similar hardship location. Set aside my obvious professional jealousy that when Enron schemed to buy writers' influence its thoughts turned to Bill Kristol ($100,000) and Paul Krugman ($50,000) rather than yours truly. Set aside whether such disbursements accomplished anything. (Kristol would have favored most Enron positions in any case, and Krugman has been harshly critical of the company despite cashing its check.) What really frosts me is that I've been at the forefront of writing about the very issues on which Enron sought to purchase influence...<hr></blockquote>
<strong>
Department of complaints.
<a href="http://slate.msn.com/?id=2061454"; target="_blank">Enron Envy</a>
Where's my bribe?
By Gregg Easterbrook
Posted Friday, February 1, 2002, at 8:17 AM PT
</strong><hr></blockquote>
No wonder they went bankrupt - I think they gave all their money away.
<a href="http://www.michaelmoore.com/2002_0129.html"; target="_blank">http://www.michaelmoore.com/2002_0129.html</a>;
wow.
Example:
It's quite obvious to everyone that seb enjoys sex with <a href="http://www1.ics.uci.edu/~pazzani/4H/Goats.html"; target="_blank">goats</a>.
Very very damning.
Mike has his usual style, (Apparently ~$200k is a "pittance" compared to $500k).
He needs to go do more important stuff besides give angry internet teens more fap material.
<strong>The links restate obvious facts while his allegations are unlinked.
Example:
It's quite obvious to everyone that seb enjoys sex with <a href="http://www1.ics.uci.edu/~pazzani/4H/Goats.html"; target="_blank">goats</a>.
Very very damning.
Mike has his usual style, (Apparently ~$200k is a "pittance" compared to $500k).
He needs to go do more important stuff besides give angry internet teens more fap material.
just for the record.... you have a very odd sense of humor.
<strong>The links restate obvious facts while his allegations are unlinked.
Example:
It's quite obvious to everyone that seb enjoys sex with <a href="http://www1.ics.uci.edu/~pazzani/4H/Goats.html"; target="_blank">goats</a>.
Very very damning.
Mike has his usual style, (Apparently ~$200k is a "pittance" compared to $500k).
He needs to go do more important stuff besides give angry internet teens more fap material.
Hey. You were supposed to keep that between us. geez.