Enron again - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-25-2002, 02:31 PM   #16
War Child
 
zoomerang II's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: melbourne, terra australis
Posts: 657
Local Time: 03:55 AM
Im going to give an opinion from a non american perspective. Isn't it right and proper that the Enron fiasco is big enough that it warrants a full independent enquiry? And if this full independent inquiry found that businessmen or politicians had acted improperly, then they must be prosecuted. End of story.
Or am i too naive?


------------------
In the stillness of the evening
When the sun has had its day
I heard your voice whispering...


[This message has been edited by zoomerang II (edited 02-25-2002).]
__________________

__________________
zoomerang II is offline  
Old 02-25-2002, 04:08 PM   #17
I'm a chauvinist leprechaun
 
Lemonite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Notre Dame, IN, 46556
Posts: 1,072
Local Time: 04:55 PM
I'm not sure how to end up quoting a whole 'broken' passage, without typing in extra codes with the SHIFT key.. something I'd Rather not do.. so this is just to reply to the statements above me...

Don't put words in my mouth about 'Bragging'.. That's a sick thing to try and state... You don't even know if say My mother worked for Enron and lost all of her money. Hahah.. Easy and simplistic, but very effective.

The Issue around Global Crossing has nothing to do with it's current status.. It's just the ..to use your word.. Suspicion over McAuliffe's RunAway with 18 Millon on a mere investment... And the connections revolving around it.. That's all.. SUspicion.. I've heard your rant over how you burned the midnight oil analyzing that Company late Thursday and Friday Nights... But Again, There's more information out there..

Have I been spitting about Contributions as much as you say?..That was just an initial equalizer to the Mass Hysteria over Bush receiving funds from Enron.. and apparently no one else according to the newspapers.. You know that.. I'm surprised you keep just returning to that.. However, I hope those who you are apparently talking to hear you, because you weren't speaking to me..

And.. Conservatives, Democrats.. Blacks, Whites.. Asians.. People Trust Bush.. They know him to be a man of character and genuine trustworthiness.. Hence my question to you.. 'Whose Mind'.. Just to fill ya in.. Bush doesn't Revolve around Conservatism either in a symbolic manner.. He's embraced both parties, worked with Kennedy et al... He has depoliticized Politics. By following what he believes to be right (Which have included some issues that are pushed by Liberals).. And that's one of the great things about our current president.

L.Unplugged

[This message has been edited by Lemonite (edited 02-25-2002).]
__________________

__________________
Lemonite is offline  
Old 02-25-2002, 06:21 PM   #18
Refugee
 
Achtung Bubba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: One Nation. Under God.
Posts: 1,513
Local Time: 11:55 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon:
The criticism here is on their way of circumventing Congress. Clinton tried to work with Congress, but they were more obsessed with scandal investigations. Again, that was to the Republican Congress' advantage. "Laissez-faire" capitalism prefers a government that does nothing. However, a Congress painted as "do-nothing" is looked upon negatively, so they need "busy work." What better busy work than the "War on Drugs," flag-burning amendments, sex scandal investigations that have no chance of conviction, and now our "War on Terrorism." Basically, anything to prevent Congress from actually doing any significant domestic policy.

Reagan and the two Bush presidents did things differently. When they couldn't get Congress to cooperate, they would start doing things on their own. Look at this whole "War on Terrorism." How much of this was actually approved by Congress?
1) Clinton's administration tried to label the Republican Congress as an organization bent on starving children and killing the elderly. Not exactly "working with Congress."

2) The Clinton-era Republican Congress wasn't a "do-nothing" organization resigned to pursuing sex scandals. By your own earlier admissions, Clinton balanced the budget. By your admission now, he did so with the help of Congress. Fact is, Congress pushed such a budget through Clinton (after two vetoes). Congress also debated every measure on the Contract with America (ALL domestic policy initiatives), approved most of them, and watched all but one fall to Clinton's veto power. Someone less partisan than you would actually recognize the GOP contributions to the debate on domestic policy.

3) It appears that your painting the "War on Terrorism" as an excuse for the Congress to ignore domestic issues. (Lovely quote-marks, by the way; I'm glad to see it doesn't qualify as a real war.) First of all, to label the GOP as being THAT cynical is galling. Beyond that, I'd say that the war IS a domestic issue - an issue whose goal is to prevent terrorists from killing more civilians at home, to prevent office buildings filled with Americans and built on American soil from becoming targets.

4) Congress has approved all of Bush's efforts, last time I checked. In fact, the esteemed Michael Moore criticized the Congress for approving the 9/14 bill to "to give Bush carte blanche powers to go to war however he saw fit." Unless you have some sort of proof to the contrary...

Quote:
Thank goodness for the Democratic Senate. I have a feeling that this would have been brushed under the rug more with a Republican-dominated Legislature and Presidency.
You missed my point, and I believe intentionally so. Three of those committees are in the REPUBLICAN-CONTROLLED House of Representatives. The other seven are in a Senate SO closely divided that the jumping ship of one Senator (who is SO independent that he's planning to raise funds for the DNC) changed the balance of power. This amount of investigation would be impossible if the GOP was obstructing it.

Quote:
Then let's do it. I'm up for it. However, the public opinion around here seems to be that Bush is innocent and all guilt should be placed on Clinton. If people are actually sincere on investigating both thoroughly, I'm up for it. Let's look at Clinton's papers and let's look at the Bush/Cheney papers. But, that's right, Cheney doesn't want to release them... Either way, it appears that Enron was a cancer that has thankfully been vanquished by its own greed.


Fine, then. Quit labelling articles that expose evidence against Clinton as "perfectly partisan" and the "same old logic: Don't investigate Bush, but investigate Clinton."

That initial spout of unfounded accusations is why I first entered this discussion, and with that I leave it.
__________________
Achtung Bubba is offline  
Old 02-25-2002, 10:36 PM   #19
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 11:55 AM
Because I want to continue to argue with Bubba in a civil manner, I will end it there as well.

As for Lemonite, I waste my energy even responding to whatever you write. Your mind was made up long ago.

As for this thread, I wish it would be closed like the other Enron thread.

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 02-25-2002, 11:22 PM   #20
I'm a chauvinist leprechaun
 
Lemonite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Notre Dame, IN, 46556
Posts: 1,072
Local Time: 04:55 PM
Ah.. Since this debating is complete, Allow me to bring it into the depths of complete nonsense..

A Haiku for your delight


Bags of Yams
Falling From Your Eyes
Orange Goo

L.Unplugged
__________________
Lemonite is offline  
Old 02-26-2002, 02:55 AM   #21
Refugee
 
Danospano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 1,415
Local Time: 11:55 AM
In a uptopian society the only opinions would be informed opinions based on merit and reason. So far, this forum is resembling not of the kind.

Just so you all know, the reason I do not get involved in these heated mudslinging discussion is not because I'm ignorate on the subject ( I happen to have a basic knowledge of what's going on), but because no one is focusing on the issue at hand.

If the issue is Enron, please understand that if you begin citing facts that have no actual relation to Enron itself, you're invalidating your argument.

And futhermore, if you want to find "REAL" truth, bringing partisan politics to the table is among the most narrowminded approaches to solving the problem. We are talking about the law, and if someone broke the law, why shouldn't we investigate it? Especially when thousands of people lost their life savings. I'd rather know what happened behind closed doors, than to have blind faith in our leadership. (And no, that wasn't a jab at dubya, it was a jab at everyone in elected office).
__________________
Danospano is offline  
Old 02-26-2002, 03:04 AM   #22
I'm a chauvinist leprechaun
 
Lemonite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Notre Dame, IN, 46556
Posts: 1,072
Local Time: 04:55 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by zoomerang II:
Im going to give an opinion from a non american perspective. Isn't it right and proper that the Enron fiasco is big enough that it warrants a full independent enquiry? And if this full independent inquiry found that businessmen or politicians had acted improperly, then they must be prosecuted. End of story.
Or am i too naive?


First of all.. No one was complaining when the stock was going up.. Ok.. now after my little bit of bowel waste, I'll just give an opinion..

Enron is only as big as it is because people lost money.. a lot of money.. .. Hahah.. how simple this is, But That's not all of the 'only' .. Because the added dimension is that it has Political Ties...

Note. GLOBAL CROSSING.. the Fourth Largest Bankruptcy in History .. With more APPARENT Scandal laced through it than Enron.. Is Getting No Media Play.. though it is picking up more than the one article I've seen on it...

Back to Enron and Political Ties... Enron has ties to the Bush Administration, however innocent, or corrupt is yet to be officially seen.. Though all evidence at the moment points to no illegal involvement...

Now a bit of commentary:
Coming from a Republican perspective, the OverBlownness of it in the Media.. Not in the Congressional Investigations.. (As Bubba pointed out Republicans were Involved In)
The media/Liberals feel they can trap Bush in something here..(Not so radical statement inserted here:They can get back at him (Any Republican) for the Impeachment of Clinton) and That is a large contributor to why it is such a Big Deal.. If Global Crossing was involved with Bush as it were with McAuliffe.. Then I'd be very interested to see what the Headlines would Read.

L.Unplugged
__________________
Lemonite is offline  
Old 02-26-2002, 03:12 AM   #23
I'm a chauvinist leprechaun
 
Lemonite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Notre Dame, IN, 46556
Posts: 1,072
Local Time: 04:55 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon:
As it stands, unless these papers are revealed, there will always be a cloud of guilt over this presidency.

Melon

In Whose Mind?.. Yours?..

And again, This was in another thread a bit back.. Have you no qualms with the kind of Constitutional Precedent this would set? Sadly I don't think you do..

Just wondering your opinon on this, cuz you've never really addressed it...

L.Unplugged

80's, It's good to hear from ya again, How was that extended vacation in Peru.. I heard you were basking in the sun with Half Clad Women all begging for your attention.. Rumor also has it you're a big fan of Pina Coladas?
__________________
Lemonite is offline  
Old 02-26-2002, 03:41 AM   #24
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 11:55 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Lemonite:
Enron is only as big as it is because people lost money.. a lot of money.. ..
I love how you brag about this.

Quote:
Note. GLOBAL CROSSING.. the Fourth Largest Bankruptcy in History .. With more APPARENT Scandal laced through it than Enron.. Is Getting No Media Play.. though it is picking up more than the one article I've seen on it...
Global Crossing is still operating. No employees fired (but not hiring anyone new). It is positioned to reemerge out of bankruptcy. Major difference between Enron, where all the employees were fired and the executives ran off with millions. Nor does Global Crossing have thousands of fradulent foreign subsidiaries like Enron. The "more apparent scandal" is all in your head, because you, along with the EIB king, just would love to see the Democrats fall. What killed Global Crossing was simple: a Wall Street fiber optics panic. They weren't expecting their $14 stock price to evaporate to 80 cents overnight. The same exact thing burned K-Mart.

Quote:
Back to Enron and Political Ties... Enron has ties to the Bush Administration, however innocent, or corrupt is yet to be officially seen.. Though all evidence at the moment points to no illegal involvement...
Correct. The investigation should continue unimpeded to see if this will remain true or not.

Quote:
The media/Liberals feel they can trap Bush in something here..(Not so radical statement inserted here:They can get back at him (Any Republican) for the Impeachment of Clinton) and That is a large contributor to why it is such a Big Deal.. If Global Crossing was involved with Bush as it were with McAuliffe.. Then I'd be very interested to see what the Headlines would Read.
1) The Republicans wanted to get back at the Democrats for nailing Nixon during Clinton's impeachment, so don't pretend total innocence.

2) It isn't just about contributions. Maybe I'm repeating myself until I'm hoarse (wouldn't be the first time in this forum), but if it were just about campaign contributions, you could rightfully state that Democrats and Republicans should share blame. However, something is "suspicious" ("suspicious" does NOT automatically mean "guilty") about the way Cheney's energy policy ran during the California energy crisis and the fact that much of Bush's Administration used to work for or had close ties to Enron. Not to mention the "suspicion" that Lay himself was involved in crafting the energy policy. It bleeds conflict of interest, and, maybe, it isn't illegal. We'll see.

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 02-26-2002, 03:48 AM   #25
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 11:55 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Lemonite:
In Whose Mind?.. Yours?..
The world doesn't revolve around conservatism, mind you.

Quote:
And again, This was in another thread a bit back.. Have you no qualms with the kind of Constitutional Precedent this would set? Sadly I don't think you do..
"Constitutional precedent" my ass. Congress has repeatedly asserted its right to investigate the president and private conversations, and the court system has upheld it. Remember the Watergate tapes? All private White House conversations during the Nixon era. This is absolutely no different.

However, assuming there would be a "constitutional precedent" problem, it would be for the better. We should have every right to know whom or what our President is "getting advice" from. I'm tired of all the campaign lies to get elected and then, behind closed doors, doing the opposite.

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time
__________________

__________________
melon is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:55 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com