Enron Tapes!!!

[dissention]

CBS News played "the tapes that Enron and the government did not want you to hear" (that's what Dan Rather said, folks!) and I almost **** my pants.

They were mocking old women who had to pay out of their asses for their electric bills, said "Burn, baby, burn!" about the CA forest fires, and said that they were supporting Shrub because he would do what they told him when it came to the company. Then they said that they were glad he'll win because then Ken Lay would beocme Energy Secretary.

I'm dying over here.

[gldstwmn]

CBS News played "the tapes that Enron and the government did not want you to hear" (that's what Dan Rather said, folks!) and I almost **** my pants.

They were mocking old women who had to pay out of their asses for their electric bills, said "Burn, baby, burn!" about the CA forest fires, and said that they were supporting Shrub because he would do what they told him when it came to the company. Then they said that they were glad he'll win because then Ken Lay would beocme Energy Secretary.

I'm dying over here.

Oh my God. Horrifying, evil, souless bastards.

[dissention]

Oh my God. Horrifying, evil, souless bastards.

Exactly. All of it was so cruel and evil. I couldn't beleive what I was hearing.

[Vianna]

Those Enron people should be convicted and have to do time. I wonder if the gov't ever collected the taxes they owe? They collect mine fast enough..

[dissention]

I thought that Ken Lay and Shrub never met each other, though? :lol:

[strandinthewind]

I thought that Ken Lay and Shrub never met each other, though? :lol:


Here we go again, one sided bashing. Please add - Clinton (hey - all of this happened under his watch :shrug: ) and he and just about every other Democrat and other party politician took money from the scum at Enron and Enron itself. So, if you are gonna lay blame, I say lay it it on all involved.

Here is an interesting site:

http://www.counterpunch.org/donnelly02092004.html

[dissention]

Here we go again, one sided bashing. Please add - Clinton (hey - all of this happened under his watch :shrug: ) and he and just about every other Democrat and other party politician took money from the scum at Enron and Enron itself. So, if you are gonna lay blame, I say lay it it on all involved.

Here is an interesting site:

http://www.counterpunch.org/donnelly02092004.html

Here we go again. I point out another freeper lie and you have to defend it by bringing up people who don't even factor into the lie. ;)

[strandinthewind]

Here we go again. I point out another freeper lie and you have to defend it by bringing up people who don't even factor into the lie. ;)


Are you saying Enron and its employees never donated to Clinton, Kerry, or any other D politician? I do not think you are saying that. Moreover, what about T. Kerry serving on the same board as Ken Lay. Granted, I am not about guilt by association, but you seem to have no problem asserting it when it comes to W :shrug:

Again, I am not exonerating W, I am just saying they ALL were bought by Enron. Yet, once again, you assert it only against W and seemingly are willing to forgive everybody else or at least are willing to forgive Clinton and his regime for allowing Enron to commit fraud during their watch while they were on the payroll. I mean yoiu NEVER assert that anyone has any guilt for anything but W and crewe. Everybody else gets a free ride. IMO - they are BOTH horrible people for that IMO - millions of people lost lots of money from that.

And - Clinton most certainly factors into the equation. It happened on his watch. Yet, you can never admit that - or can you :cool:

[gldstwmn]

I thought that Ken Lay and Shrub never met each other, though? :lol:

Apparently, Arnold Schawarzenegger met with Kenny Boy & Co back in 2001 at the Peninsula Hotel right before they went down the tubes. Then he settled the suit brought by the state for pennies on the dollar after his election whereas Governor Davis was going after Enron for a 9 billion dollar payback. It should be noted that Governor Davis's recall started after this.

[dissention]

Are you saying Enron and its employees never donated to Clinton, Kerry, or any other D politician? I do not think you are saying that. Moreover, what about T. Kerry serving on the same board as Ken Lay. Granted, I am not about guilt by association, but you seem to have no problem asserting it when it comes to W :shrug:

Again, I am not exonerating W, I am just saying they ALL were bought by Enron. Yet, once again, you assert it only against W and seemingly are willing to forgive everybody else or at least are willing to forgive Clinton and his regime for allowing Enron to commit fraud during their watch while they were on the payroll. I mean yoiu NEVER assert that anyone has any guilt for anything but W and crewe. Everybody else gets a free ride. IMO - they are BOTH horrible people for that IMO - millions of people lost lots of money from that.

And - Clinton most certainly factors into the equation. It happened on his watch. Yet, you can never admit that - or can you :cool:

The point went so far over your head that it can now be seen hanging from the moon.

What did I say in my post? I said that Bush said he had never met Ken Lay, let alone knew him, and that has been proven to be an ass backwards lie. So, I pointed the lie out. Then you dragged Clinton into it when he had nothing to do with it. No one was talking about people being bought off or any such ****, I simply pointed out another lie from Shrub. But, when all else fails, blame Bubba.

[dissention]

Apparently, Arnold Schawarzenegger met with Kenny Boy & Co back in 2001 at the Peninsula Hotel right before they went down the tubes. Then he settled the suit brought by the state for pennies on the dollar after his election whereas Governor Davis was going after Enron for a 9 billion dollar payback. It should be noted that Governor Davis's recall started after this.

This was the reason for the recall and I'm shocked that the Gubernator wasn't mentioned in any of the tapes. He kisses so much corporate ass that his lips are brown.

[gldstwmn]

Are you saying Enron and its employees never donated to Clinton, Kerry, or any other D politician? I do not think you are saying that. Moreover, what about T. Kerry serving on the same board as Ken Lay. Granted, I am not about guilt by association, but you seem to have no problem asserting it when it comes to W :shrug:

Again, I am not exonerating W, I am just saying they ALL were bought by Enron. Yet, once again, you assert it only against W and seemingly are willing to forgive everybody else or at least are willing to forgive Clinton and his regime for allowing Enron to commit fraud during their watch while they were on the payroll. I mean yoiu NEVER assert that anyone has any guilt for anything but W and crewe. Everybody else gets a free ride. IMO - they are BOTH horrible people for that IMO - millions of people lost lots of money from that.

And - Clinton most certainly factors into the equation. It happened on his watch. Yet, you can never admit that - or can you :cool:

Enron imploded under BUSH. Kenny Boy and Georgie were good friends. You can't really say that about Clinton. What has this administration done to help the victims of Enron? Nothing. Has Kenny benn tried? No. Part of the reason alcoholics are able to continue their bad behavior (even into their supposed sobriety) is because certain people around them ENABLE them. They're called ENABLERS. Therein lies the basis for your arguments. I'm sorry but continually saying Clinton did it just doesn't work. We have a huge problem. We need to solve the problem by voting it out this November. You can stomp your feet and say "Clinton did it" all you want. It's not going to cure the festering wound inflicted upon this country by the Supremes in 2000. So please, if you feel it necessary to defend Bush, please do so in the context of his own actions. Otherwise, you're just ENABLING him. :wavey:

[dissention]

So please, if you feel it necessary to defend Bush, please do so in the context of his own actions.

That's impossible, darling. Everything that happens under Bush's watch is no fault of his own, it's all Clinton. That's the only excuse that's out there for Shrub's incompetence. Even the old lie is still being spread around that a recession occurred under Clinton. They're all ludicrous arguments, so...

[strandinthewind]

You poor misguided people :laugh:

I am not defending Bush. I think he is an a$$. I am merely pointing out that the Enron debacle occured under Clinton's watch and the Clinton DOJ did not catch them as them were supposed to do. In fact, they caught NONE of the largest corporate swindlers that apparently were allowed to run free during that time. I mean Enron imploded at the very beginning of the W Presidency, but the actions causing the implosion all occured under Clinton. To exonerate Clinton during that time period would require exonerating W as the Gov. of Texas during essentially that same time period. Again, so there is no confusion, I think both W and Clinton are to blame for the Enron fraud. NEITHER lifted a finger to stop it. So, once again, a la Iraq, we see Billy Bot and W in bed together in a situation that ruined peoples' lives. Yet, I call them both on it and the crazy liberals exonerate Clinton by looking the other way.

BTW - here is an article showing the Clinton administrations' connections with Enron - Any questions :laugh: :cool:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/2/28/12723.shtml

Here is another from a perhaps more reputable source:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A22448-2001Dec24?language=printer

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 :cool:

[strandinthewind]

That's impossible, darling. Everything that happens under Bush's watch is no fault of his own, it's all Clinton. That's the only excuse that's out there for Shrub's incompetence. Even the old lie is still being spread around that a recession occurred under Clinton. They're all ludicrous arguments, so...


AND ANOTHER THING :laugh: - are you seriously arguing that no downturn in the American economy happened under Clinton's watch or that Clinton's allowing the corp.'s to run free and participate in fraudulant activity for YEARS, which resulted in the loss of trillions of dollars at the tail end of his regime had nothing whatsoever to do with the end of that cycle in the beginning of W's regime. I mean come on. To hear you say it, all was fine and dandy under Clinton until the day he left office and the day W takes office its a hard candy Christmas due solely to W's policies. PUUHHHLLLLLEEEZZZZEEEEEEEEEEEEE :rooleyes:

BTW - all credible economic indicators are suggesting the economy is getting stronger under W, a fact the D's currently are ignoring :rolleyes:

[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]

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 :cool:

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 :laugh: 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 :shrug:

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 :cool:

[gldstwmn]

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]

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]

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 :laugh:

[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]

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 :rolleyes:

[strandinthewind]

[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.



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.[/QUOTE]

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]

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]

I do not understand, explain.



Republican bad because Democrat bad. Ug.

[strandinthewind]

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]

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 :rolleyes:

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]

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 :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

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 :laugh:

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.

[The Tower]

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.

I think you have missed the entire point of this thread. Please reread the point of this thread.

The "Enron tapes" are only related to Enron's illegal manipulation of the California energy crisis. Both Enron and Duke Energy (and others) withheld power under false pretenses from the state of California- mainly to drive up the price of electricity, since California no longer had a regulated power industry. California appealed to the Federal Regulatory Commission and the Bush administration to do SOMETHING, preferably a temporary price cap to stop the illegal gouging while California's attorney general investigated the situation. However, Bush refused to intervene in any matter stating, "We will not take any action that makes California's problems worse and that's why I oppose price caps." Yeah, that's right ya piece of ****- it makes our problems WORSE to be paying more money for electricity!! What a stupid f**k!!

This issue is separate from the collapse of Enron, which I don't believe was ever referenced in this thread.

Here's the entire transcript of what Dissention is talking about:

Enron Tapes Transcript (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/01/eveningnews/main620626.shtml)

(CBS) When a forest fire shut down a major transmission line into California, cutting power supplies and raising prices, Enron energy traders celebrated, CBS News Correspondent Vince Gonzales reports.

"Burn, baby, burn. That's a beautiful thing," a trader sang about the massive fire.

Four years after California's disastrous experiment with energy deregulation, Enron energy traders can be heard – on audiotapes obtained by CBS News – gloating and praising each other as they helped bring on, and cash-in on, the Western power crisis.

"He just f---s California," says one Enron employee. "He steals money from California to the tune of about a million."

"Will you rephrase that?" asks a second employee.

"OK, he, um, he arbitrages the California market to the tune of a million bucks or two a day," replies the first.

The tapes, from Enron's West Coast trading desk, also confirm what CBS reported years ago: that in secret deals with power producers, traders deliberately drove up prices by ordering power plants shut down.

"If you took down the steamer, how long would it take to get it back up?" an Enron worker is heard saying.

"Oh, it's not something you want to just be turning on and off every hour. Let's put it that way," another says.

"Well, why don't you just go ahead and shut her down."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tonight's Evening News will have more of the shocking Enron tapes, plus the outraged reaction from Capitol Hill.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Officials with the Snohomish Public Utility District near Seattle received the tapes from the Justice Department.

"This is the evidence we've all been waiting for. This proves they manipulated the market," said Eric Christensen, a spokesman for the utility.

That utility, like many others, is trying to get its money back from Enron.

"They're f------g taking all the money back from you guys?" complains an Enron employee on the tapes. "All the money you guys stole from those poor grandmothers in California?"

"Yeah, grandma Millie, man"

"Yeah, now she wants her f------g money back for all the power you've charged right up, jammed right up her a------ for f------g $250 a megawatt hour."

And the tapes appear to link top Enron officials Ken Lay and Jeffrey Skilling to schemes that fueled the crisis.

"Government Affairs has to prove how valuable it is to Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling," says one trader.

"Ok."

"Do you know when you started over-scheduling load and making buckets of money on that?

Before the 2000 election, Enron employees pondered the possibilities of a Bush win.

"It'd be great. I'd love to see Ken Lay Secretary of Energy," says one Enron worker.

That didn't happen, but they were sure President Bush would fight any limits on sky-high energy prices.

"When this election comes Bush will f------g whack this s--t, man. He won't play this price-cap b------t."

Crude, but true.

"We will not take any action that makes California's problems worse and that's why I oppose price caps," said Mr. Bush on May 29, 2001.

Both the Justice Department and Enron tried to prevent the release of these tapes. Enron's lawyers argued they merely prove "that people at Enron sometimes talked like Barnacle Bill the Sailor."


©MMIV, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.

[dissention]

are you seriously arguing that no downturn in the American economy happened under Clinton's watch or that Clinton's allowing the corp.'s to run free and participate in fraudulant activity for YEARS

Not at all, you poor, misguided soul.

There most certainly was a downturn in the economy, but not a recession. The recession didn't occur until three months after Bush took office in March. But, the neocons and the freepers like to spin it and say that the recession happened in Clinton's last year in office, which is patently false.

[strandinthewind]

No, but Dissention then made a comment linking Enron with W and implying (at least to me) that W enabled Enron. So, I called BS on that because although probably true, W was not alone in that boat. That is how I got to where I got. Then, everyone says I am defending W by villifying D's. That is patently unfair and not true. Once again, they are all guilty. I am just calling BS on placing the guilt only on W, which to me and based on countless other comments in countless other threads (we do love to argue politics :laugh: ) I took as his meaning. Perhaps I am am wromg and Dissention really meant that Gov. W and the Clinton adminsitration were in bed together in the Enron mess. I doubt it, but it could be :laugh:

[gldstwmn]

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

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.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1360017.stm

Wednesday, 30 May, 2001, 13:42 GMT 14:42 UK
California governor to sue Bush



California's wholesale electricity prices have rocketed

California Governor Gray Davis has said he will sue the US federal government over its energy policy, after President George W Bush refused to cap the soaring electricity prices in the state.
California has been experiencing frequent rolling blackouts and a sharp increase in electricity prices since the beginning of the year.



We will not take any action that makes California's problem worse

President Bush
Following a meeting in California with Mr Bush, Mr Davis said he would file a lawsuit against the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission over its alleged failure to ensure that energy costs were just and reasonable.

President Bush had earlier rejected demands by the authorities in California for the federal government to intervene to force down the prices.

Mr Bush had argued that price-caps would make the problem of chronic energy shortages worse.

But the president said he would ask Congress to release $150m to help low-income Californians pay their energy bills.

Calls for relief

Governor Davis had argued that California was being "gouged unbelievably".



An anti-Bush protester sees red

Mr Davis, a Democrat with hopes of challenging Mr Bush for the presidency in 2004, had earlier demanded that Washington force down electricity prices that have cost California nearly $8bn since January.

"It does not matter if someone thinks we should have relief; the law says we should have relief," the governor said.

Earlier on Tuesday, a federal appeals court declined to order US energy regulators to cap wholesale electricity prices.

California State Senate President John Burton, Assembly Speaker Robert Hertzberg and the city of Oakland had asked the court to order the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Ferc) to cap electricity prices.

"The citizens of California are suffering immediate irreparable harm as a result of Ferc's abrogation of its duty to establish just and reasonable rates for electricity," they argued in their suit.

The court panel ruled that the appeal did not warrant its intervention.

I just want to reiterate this part again:
President Bush had earlier rejected demands by the authorities in California for the federal government to intervene to force down the prices.

As for this;
But the president said he would ask Congress to release $150m to help low-income Californians pay their energy bills.
What do you think ever happened with that?

[dissention]

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 :cool:

In the future, babe, don't make a mountain out of a molehill. Talk about blowing things out of proportion. :lol:

*waves to the point, which is still up there, in solitude, hanging from the moon*

[strandinthewind]

Not at all, you poor, misguided soul.

There most certainly was a downturn in the economy, but not a recession. The recession didn't occur until three months after Bush took office in March. But, the neocons and the freepers like to spin it and say that the recession happened in Clinton's last year in office, which is patently false.

True, the recession did not occur until then. But, recession is a techinical term. For the economy to get to a true techincally defined recession, the underpinnings of that had to have started during Clinton's administration. That begs the question of why did the economy start to fail then. I submit it is because the companies that failed under W's watch were beginning to implode under Clinton's watch. That and the false wealth (inflated stock prices with no earnings to support them) bubble created by the NASDAQ tech plight which happened under Clinton's watch, finally popped. That is all I am saying. I am not exonderating W by blaming Clinton. I am merely blaming Clinton as well.

[dissention]

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.

That's the best thing I've read all day. They can take me to the Tower anytime, doll. :p

You're absolutely right. It's ridiculous, not to mention ludicrous, to justify someones bad behavior by pointing at the bad behavior of another. Therein lies the biggest flaw in Jason's arguments for the past two days. :laugh: ****, even O'Reilly bitches at his "guests" when they try to do it.

[strandinthewind]

In the future, babe, don't make a mountain out of a molehill. Talk about blowing things out of proportion. :lol:

*waves to the point, which is still up there, in solitude, hanging from the moon*

Well, when you stop making one sided implications designed to villify only one participant . . . :xoxo:

[gldstwmn]

http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/utilities/pr/pr003708.php3

Enron E-mails Confirm Schwarzenegger-Ken Lay Meeting
Enron E-Mails Show Arnold Met With Ken Lay During Energy Crisis
Santa Monica, CA -- Internal Enron e-mails confirm that Arnold Schwarzenegger was among a small group of executives who met with Lay at the posh Peninsula Beverly Hills hotel in May of 2001, in the midst of California's energy crisis. View the e-mails. The Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, which obtained the e-mails, is calling on Schwarzenegger to acknowledge the meetings and disclose the information that was presented and discussed. The meeting with Enron occurred ten days after rolling blackouts darkened California for two consecutive days; Schwarzenegger has previously said that he does not remember such a meeting.

"You don't meet with America's most well-known corporate crook in the middle of California's biggest financial disaster and not remember," said FTCR's senior consumer advocate Douglas Heller. "Mr. Schwarzenegger should come clean about what happened at that meeting and if he shares Ken Lay's views on energy regulation."

The documents provide a list of invitees to the hastily arranged meeting and a list of those who actually attended. Only eleven of the 45 invitees attended, including Schwarzenegger. The meeting was meant to be an opportunity to gain business community support for Enron's "comprehensive solution" to the energy crisis. In one e-mail, Enron's VP of Public Relations wrote: "We'd like to position this meeting as an insider's conversation of what's going on with the energy situation. This meeting should be for principals only." (emphasis in original)

FTCR contends that Enron policies were responsible for the severe energy crisis California faced in 2000 and 2001. The group noted that the crisis had dramatic implications on the state economy and state budget and will continue to impact consumers for years to come. FTCR has called for a repeal of the deregulation and supported SB 888 (Dunn) to re-regulate the state's electricity system. FTCR has been critical of Enron's involvement in the California energy crisis, in which the company developed schemes for manipulating the power market that forced massive price spikes in the state.

"Since it was apparently important enough for Schwarzenegger to attend despite the last minute notice, Schwarzenegger should now explain what happened at his meeting with Enron's Ken Lay and whether or not he supports electricity re-regulation," said Heller.

[dissention]

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 :laugh:

I do. We had seven years of phenomenal prosperity in this country. Then came Clinton's last year in office, in which there was no recession, may I remind you.

[strandinthewind]

That's the best thing I've read all day. They can take me to the Tower anytime, doll. :p

You're absolutely right. It's ridiculous, not to mention ludicrous, to justify someones bad behavior by pointing at the bad behavior of another. Therein lies the biggest flaw in Jason's arguments for the past two days. :laugh: ****, even O'Reilly bitches at his "guests" when they try to do it.

Please show me how I am trying to justify W's behavior. I am not. I have repeatedly said W is guilty of just about everything asserted. I am just pointing out that to put all of the blame on him is wrong. How is that excusing W?

[strandinthewind]

I do. We had seven years of phenomenal prosperity in this country. Then came Clinton's last year in office, in which there was no recession, may I remind you.

Seven years based significantly on stock market (particularly the NASDAQ) growth, which was based on nothing substantial. I mean yes companies made money during that time period. But the profits in no way justified the explosive prices in all markets, esp. internet company IPO's. Interestingly, I am unsure of the vast majority of the companies with IPO's committed any kind of fraud. I just think that despite warning from Greenspan downward, people thought these new companies would eventually make the money to support the share price and ignored all advice to the contrary.

Then, we have two of the largest companies in the world commiting fraud and boosting their already high stock prices based on false earning - All of which happened under Clinton. Do you really think that had Enron and MCI (not to mention the others) been truthful, the stock market would have been so explosive?

[gldstwmn]

Please show me how I am trying to justify W's behavior. I am not. I have repeatedly said W is guilty of just about everything asserted. I am just pointing out that to put all of the blame on him is wrong. How is that excusing W?

You're enabling him. His mother and father probably did it for years. "Oh poor Georgie, it's not really his fault." If the buck don't stop with him, then it don't stop. But we've already seen that, haven't we?

[dissention]

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

OF COURSE YOU ARE!!!!!!! JEEZUM CROW, WHAT DO YOU EAT?! :eek:

The entire crux of your arguments is that Bush wouldn't be bad if the Democrats didn't enable him. I;ve seen it post after post, I don't understand how you can't, AND YOU'RE THE ONE WHO WRITES THEM! :lol: You're simply taking Bush's f*ck ups and putting them on the shoulders of the Democrats instead of on his shoulders. It's the Democrats fault that Bush had no coalition in going to war? It's their fault for everything in your book. Clinton did this, Clinton did that, if he didn't, Bush wouldn't be bad. Blah blah blah. Stop with the scapegoating, man.

You know I love ya, Jason, but my word. :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

You're enabling him. His mother and father probably did it for years. "Oh poor Georgie, it's not really his fault." If the buck don't stop with him, then it don't stop. But we've already seen that, haven't we?

FOUL - and you know it :laugh: I have never once said all of the things I hold him accountable for are not totally his fault. Again, although I think he went to war with Iraq with the full support of Kerry and Clinton, I think they had no part in his lying about the exigency of the threat. W ALONE is guilty for that. Similarly, as Gov. of Texas, he allowed Enron to get away with fraud. He alone is guilty of that. I cannot find anywhere where i have said differently. So, I do not see how you think i am enabling W. I think you all are just pissed (in a friendly way :woohoo: ) that I can call BS on all people involved and not just W.

[dissention]

Please show me how I am trying to justify W's behavior. I am not. I have repeatedly said W is guilty of just about everything asserted. I am just pointing out that to put all of the blame on him is wrong. How is that excusing W?

It's called E-N-A-B-L-I-N-G.

I was in the Gap the other day and saw a woman rip the tag off of a hot jacket for no reason. Then she went to the counter to pay for her clothes. While she held the sole cashiers attention, I slipped that jacket under my shirt and waltzed out of the store with it. Hey, it's not my fault, I didn't take the tag off.

[strandinthewind]

OF COURSE YOU ARE!!!!!!! JEEZUM CROW, WHAT DO YOU EAT?! :eek:

The entire crux of your arguments is that Bush wouldn't be bad if the Democrats didn't enable him. I;ve seen it post after post, I don't understand how you can't, AND YOU'RE THE ONE WHO WRITES THEM! :lol: You're simply taking Bush's f*ck ups and putting them on the shoulders of the Democrats instead of on his shoulders. It's the Democrats fault that Bush had no coalition in going to war? It's their fault for everything in your book. Clinton did this, Clinton did that, if he didn't, Bush wouldn't be bad. Blah blah blah. Stop with the scapegoating, man.

You know I love ya, Jason, but my word. :laugh:

No I am not. I am just saying he was not alone in them. Why is it so hard for you all to assign blame to a D. I have no problem assigning blame to both.

[dissention]

FOUL - and you know it :laugh: I have never once said all of the things I hold him accountable for are not totally his fault. Again, although I think he went to war with Iraq with the full support of Kerry and Clinton, I think they had no part in his lying about the exigency of the threat. W ALONE is guilty for that. Similarly, as Gov. of Texas, he allowed Enron to get away with fraud. He alone is guilty of that. I cannot find anywhere where i have said differently. So, I do not see how you think i am enabling W. I think you all are just pissed (in a friendly way :woohoo: ) that I can call BS on all people involved and not just W.

Like Rummy, I guess you don't know the meaning of the phrase "The buck stops here."

He can have all the support he wants, he makes the decisions. If he decides to invade a country with no exit strategy, no ground plan, no coalition, it's on his sorry ass.

[strandinthewind]

It's called E-N-A-B-L-I-N-G.

I was in the Gap the other day and saw a woman rip the tag off of a hot jacket for no reason. Then she went to the counter to pay for her clothes. While she held the sole cashiers attention, I slipped that jacket under my shirt and waltzed out of the store with it. Hey, it's not my fault, I didn't take the tag off.

Again, please specific examples of where I have said "it is not W's fault." I know you cannot because I never said it, with the sole exception of the economy, which was faltering when W took office. Could W have done something to stop the faltering economy? Well, he treid with the tax cuts. Have they worked? Well, the economy is currently moving on full steam ahead. AND - 9/11 certainly did not help things and most economist are unsure how to factor that event into the economic recovery equation. What W did that was bad, was he consciously lied about the recovery more than once. AND - he did that all on his little ole own :cool:

[strandinthewind]

Like Rummy, I guess you don't know the meaning of the phrase "The buck stops here."

He can have all the support he wants, he makes the decisions. If he decides to invade a country with no exit strategy, no ground plan, no coalition, it's on his sorry ass.


Bless your heart, then and again, why did Kerry want to do the same thing in 98 and why has Kerry not said invading Iraq in and of itself was morally wrong. He has not and instead said he would have invaded Iraq, but done it diffrerenty. But, you are right, W made the decision to invade Iraq and his admin. has made a HUGE mess due to their ignorant miscalculations and their fevered rush to get there - ALL of that is on W's shoulders alone - he alone it to blame - blame no one else but W :cool: I am just saying that if you villify W for it, them you must villify Kerry because he said he would have invaded Iraq as well and indeed he called for Clinton to do it in 98. How is that excusing W. It is not.

[dissention]

Could W have done something to stop the faltering economy? Well, he treid with the tax cuts. Have they worked? Well, the economy is currently moving on full steam ahead.

Voodoo economics do not work, IMO. But, to be fair and because I have a soft spot for ya, there are no conclusive studies that prove they do or they don't. For every study or analysis that says it does, there's another out there that says it doesn't.

Next. :wavey:

[strandinthewind]

Voodoo economics do not work, IMO. But, to be fair and because I have a soft spot for ya, there are no conclusive studies that prove they do or they don't. For every study or analysis that says it does, there's another out there that says it doesn't.

Next. :wavey:

Well, something is working because the economy is getting better :laugh:

Interestingly, I think larger tax cuts in the middle and lower classes are more effective because these people spend more money as a whole, etc. I do think, however that some tax relief for the wealthy ($200,000 or more per year) is warranted because, moral considerations aside, these people spend money as well, just not as much on the whole as those making less. In other words if you are really rich and pay only 8 million instead of 10 million in tazes, odds are you are not going to spend that extra 2 million in staple goods (cars, food, home addition, etc.) than the people in the middle and lower classes. These staple goods are the backbone of the economy.

[dissention]

Bless your heart, then and again, why did Kerry want to do the same thing in 98 and why has Kerry not said invading Iraq in and of itself was morally wrong. He has not and instead said he would have invaded Iraq, but done it diffrerenty. But, you are right, W made the decision to invade Iraq and that is on his shoulders. I am just saying that if you villify W for it, them you must villify Kerry because he said he would have invaded Iraq as well and indeed he called for Clinton to do it in 98. How is that excusing W. It is not.

No, I don't have to villify Kerry or Clinton, that's where we're hitting the speed bump.

For all I know, Kerry thinks it was a moral thing to invade Iraq. While I wholeheartedly disagree, he doesn't shape foreign policy and he doesn't make the decision to invade another country. Yeah, he has a say, but he doesn't make the final decision. Maybe he believed the bogus intel that I haven't believed for ten years, who knows? He only voiced his support for this war, he wasn't the one to kill women and children and innocent soldiers by actually sending them. And if you think that for one minute a liberal from MA who just became President would ever make the mistake of being the one to initiate an invasion of another that hasn't done anyhting to us, lord help ya.

[The Tower]

I am just saying that if you villify W for it, them you must villify Kerry because he said he would have invaded Iraq as well and indeed he called for Clinton to do it in 98. How is that excusing W. It is not.

Kerry cannot be blamed for the current situation in Iraq. Kerry (like the rest of the world) was LIED TO about Iraq. Kerry based his decisions on LIES from the Bush administration.

What Kerry supported did not happen. Bush LIED to get the country to support his aggression and then pulled the old "bait and switch". You cannot hold Kerry responsible for any of it.

I don't think you're excusing Dubya, I just think you're trying to dilute the blame to include others. However, this whole Iraq thing started, debuted, and acted all because of the Bush admin. It would have never even happened except for the fact that he stole the election.

[strandinthewind]

No, I don't have to villify Kerry or Clinton, that's where we're hitting the speed bump.

For all I know, Kerry thinks it was a moral thing to invade Iraq. While I wholeheartedly disagree, he doesn't shape foreign policy and he doesn't make the decision to invade another country. Yeah, he has a say, but he doesn't make the final decision. Maybe he believed the bogus intel that I haven't believed for ten years, who knows? He only voiced his support for this war, he wasn't the one to kill women and children and innocent soldiers by actually sending them. And if you think that for one minute a liberal from MA who just became President would ever make the mistake of being the one to initiate an invasion of another that hasn't done anyhting to us, lord help ya.

Agreed that any discussion of Kerry's wrongs is not relevant to W's bad acts. I think I have said that at least ten times :laugh: I am in no way, shape, or form trying to let W off of the hook. I am just saying that W could not have sent those troops (at least in theory) without Kerry's support and the support of others. So, yes, some of the blame must fall on Kerry. How could it not :shrug:

[dissention]

Agreed that any discussion of Kerry's wrongs is not relevant to W's bad acts. I think I have said that at least ten times :laugh: I am in no way, shape, or form trying to let W off of the hook. I am just saying that W could not have sent those troops (at least in theory) without Kerry's support and the support of others. So, yes, some of the blame must fall on Kerry. How could it not :shrug:

Once again, I don't see it that way.

[strandinthewind]

Kerry cannot be blamed for the current situation in Iraq. Kerry (like the rest of the world) was LIED TO about Iraq. Kerry based his decisions on LIES from the Bush administration.

What Kerry supported did not happen. Bush LIED to get the country to support his aggression and then pulled the old "bait and switch". You cannot hold Kerry responsible for any of it.

I don't think you're excusing Dubya, I just think you're trying to dilute the blame to include others. However, this whole Iraq thing started, debuted, and acted all because of the Bush admin. It would have never even happened except for the fact that he stole the election.

So, in 1998, when Kerry supported a bill that called for Clinton to use force against Iraq to force SH to comply with the UN inspectors and to prove that he had destroyed his WMD that was all the fault of W, then the Gov. of Texas. Then, on his website, Kerry says he did not object to the war, just the W did it - primarily not gettting the entire world on our side (he does not explain how he would have done this mind you). So, you excuse the fact that Kerry via his vote allowed W to go to war. I mean should we excuse Kerry for that just because he is a Democrat. Because if we do that, then we have to excuse the Republican Congressmen and women who did the same :shrug: I mean why does the exoneration apply only to Kerry. I just do not get it.

[dissention]

So, in 1998, when Kerry supported a bill that called for Clinton to use force against Iraq to force SH to comply with the UN inspectors and to prove that he had destroyed his WMD that was all the fault of W, then the Gov. of Texas.

No, of course not. Shrub was too busy mocking death row inmates, refuting the facts about the level of poverty in his own state, and reading the philosophy of a certain Jesus Christ.

[strandinthewind]

Once again, I don't see it that way.

So, you excuse Kerry for voting to allow W to go to war and Kerry's 1998 call for Clinton to go to war. With all due respect - foul :D

I mean at least I am willing to say, Kerry did what he had to to survive politically and who cares. He is still better than Bush and the Christian Coalition any day. I know my excusing Kerry is hypoctitical. But, I am one for it and I do not care who knows it :laugh: Moreover, I will vote for the warmongering Kerry because he at least in theory is not trying to establish a Theocracy. :cool:

[strandinthewind]

No, of course not. Shrub was too busy mocking death row inmates, refuting the facts about the level of poverty in his own state, and reading the philosophy of a certain Jesus Christ.

Agreed, but that is rank SPIN so - I cry FOUL and state please driectly address the point!!!! :laugh:

[dissention]

Agreed, but that is rank SPIN so - I cry FOUL and state please driectly address the point!!!! :laugh:

How can it be spin? He factually did all those things. ;)

[dissention]

So, you excuse Kerry for voting to allow W to go to war and Kerry's 1998 call for Clinton to go to war. With all due respect - foul :D

No, I don't excuse it (as I've said MANY times in the past ad nauseaum), I just don't view those things in the light that you do. He voted for those things, yeah, but he didn't do those things, Shrub did. AND - he based all of those votes on lies and false intelligence. Bush didn't. :wavey:

[strandinthewind]

No, I don't excuse it (as I've said MANY times in the past ad nauseaum), I just don't view those things in the light that you do. He voted for those things, yeah, but he didn't do those things, Shrub did. AND - he based all of those votes on lies and false intelligence. Bush didn't. :wavey:

Well, then in 1998, it was Clinton's lie :shrug:

In the end, I just see this as a W is the anti-christ ideaology, yet the people who support him are let off the hook. I mean if Kerry thinks it was a lie, then why is he still saying invading Iraq was the right thing to do, just not the way W did it. I mean that is a serious question that obviates the whole "well W lied to Kerry" excuse.

[strandinthewind]

How can it be spin? He factually did all those things. ;)

It is spin beacuse although W did do them and is bad for it, it is calling to mind W's other bad qualities in an attempt to divert attention from the true point I made :cool: :wavey:

[dissention]

Well, then in 1998, it was Clinton's lie :shrug:

And I've never said that was necessarily wrong, did I? Nope. But Clinton never invaded based on those "lies."

[dissention]

It is spin beacuse although W did do them and is bad for it, it is calling to mind W's other bad qualities in an attempt to divert attention from the true point I made :cool: :wavey:

Nope. I was simply responding to your hyperbole.

[strandinthewind]

And I've never said that was necessarily wrong, did I? Nope. But Clinton never invaded based on those "lies."

Yea, but Kerry urged him to :shrug:

[dissention]

Yea, but Kerry urged him to :shrug:

Yea, but Clinton didn't. :shrug:

[The Tower]

So, you excuse the fact that Kerry via his vote allowed W to go to war. I mean should we excuse Kerry for that just because he is a Democrat. Because if we do that, then we have to excuse the Republican Congressmen and women who did the same :shrug: I mean why does the exoneration apply only to Kerry. I just do not get it.

Who ever said exoneration only applies to Kerry?? I don't understand how you draw up your conclusions.

I excuse the entire congressional body from their vote on the use of force in Iraq because the Bush administration purposefully LIED to congress to get them to give over the power to enact war upon Iraq. All their votes are effectively nullified because they were based on pre-meditated, purposely fabricated evidence.

I don't excuse the entire congressional body for letting Bush f**k everything up after the bait and switch, although I think they are doing a fair job about getting to the bottom of the prison abuse bull****.

[strandinthewind]

Yea, but Clinton didn't. :shrug:


No, Clinton did not. Personally, I think Clinton would have if the public opinion had been behind it, and the recent Congressional testimony somewhat supports that. But, that is neither here nor there IMO. My point is regardless of how Clinton acted, Kerry urged him to use military force. Then, fast forward to 2003, and we have Kerry urging W to use military force. W does and Clinton does not. The point is Kerry urged the use of force both times. To me, that means W held no powerful sway over Kerry in an attempt to get Kerry to support and advocate going to war in Iraq.

[strandinthewind]

Who ever said exoneration only applies to Kerry?? I don't understand how you draw up your conclusions.

I excuse the entire congressional body from their vote on the use of force in Iraq because the Bush administration purposefully LIED to congress to get them to give over the power to enact war upon Iraq. All their votes are effectively nullified because they were based on pre-meditated, purposely fabricated evidence.

I don't excuse the entire congressional body for letting Bush f**k everything up after the bait and switch, although I think they are doing a fair job about getting to the bottom of the prison abuse bull****.

I say I see the exoneration applying only to Kerry because I think people should be screaming about Kerry's participation in the Iraqi war perhaps jsut as much as W's. Once again, in 1998, Kerry advcated war with Iraq with no help from W. So, that is how I reach my conclusion that W's lies (and W did lie - no question about that) did not convince Kerry to support and advocate W's war with Iraq. Again, Kerry wanted to do the same thing in 1998 based mostly (albeit not entirely by far) on the same evidence W used. IMO, most politicians considered it political suicide not to support W in the war with Iraq. If that is so, then I say call then out for having no spine.

[dissention]

No, Clinton did not. Personally, I think Clinton would have if the public opinion had been behind it, and the recent Congressional testimony somewhat supports that. But, that is neither here nor there IMO. My point is regardless of how Clinton acted, Kerry urged him to use military force. Then, fast forward to 2003, and we have Kerry urging W to use military force. W does and Clinton does not. The point is Kerry urged the use of force both times. To me, that means W held no powerful sway over Kerry in an attempt to get Kerry to support and advocate going to war in Iraq.

You say it's neither here nor there, yet you bring it up anyways. Even though it's pure assumption.

As for Bush having no sway, that's a no-brainer and common sense. Unfortunately, the same "no-sway" argument can't be applied to lies and false intelligence.

[The Tower]

I say I see the exoneration applying only to Kerry because I think people should be screaming about Kerry's participation in the Iraqi war perhaps jsut as much as W's.

I dunno, but this just doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever.

Kerry is one of 100 senators who voted to allow Bush to use force against Iraq if Iraq did not comply with UN mandates to reveal and destoy all WMS's in their possession. Kerry did this with the assumption that the intelligence and information presented to him by Dubya was valid.

Now one could agree with that decision or one could not. However, the separate and more important issue is:

Dubya intentionally fabricated lies in order to deceive congress and the public thereby gaining the power to unilaterally declare war on Iraq for whatever purposes he thought were important.

I think that Congress (which would include Kerry) does not bear equal responsibility, nor equal scrutiny, for the situation in Iraq than the Bush administration. Period. I think if Kerry would have known what Bush was up to, he wouldn't have voted the way he did.

[strandinthewind]

You say it's neither here nor there, yet you bring it up anyways. Even though it's pure assumption.

As for Bush having no sway, that's a no-brainer and common sense. Unfortunately, the same "no-sway" argument can't be applied to lies and false intelligence.

No, I am saying Clinton's actions are irrelecant to Kerry's urging him to initiate a military response to SH's refusing to comply with the UN's order to disarm. I am bringing up Clinton's actions in 1998 only in the contect of Kerry's actions. If it helps, instead of reading Clinton in the 1998 stuff, read executive branch or the sitting president, etc. The bottom line is Kerry advocated war then, he advocated it in 2003, and he still advocates it, even though in hindsight he ways he would have done it differently. So, that makes me conclude Kerry needed no help from W and crewe - his mind had been made up to go to war with Iraq since he initially advocated it in 1998. Clinton is no part of that equation.

Where Clinton comes in for me is he was all for the invasion of Iraq when W did it. Clinton said he based his conclusion on the intelligence, which he would probably know better than anyone else since he was the Pres. So, I conclude that if you are going to villify W for the war, you have to villify Clinton as well because he supported it. Since the war, Clinton has attacked W (and rightly so IMO) on W and crewe's miscalculations and screwing everything up and thus, putting our troops in harms way. But, like Kerry, Clinton to my knowledge has never withdrawn his support for the invasion of Iraq, even though he did not do it when Kerry gave him the chance in 1998.

[dissention]

Once again, in 1998, Kerry advcated war with Iraq with no help from W.

You have really gone off the deep end. He never advocated war with Iraq in 1998. If you had actually read the joint Senate letter that he participated in and sent to Clinton, you would know that he only advocated air and missile strikes on sites suspected of manufacturing WMDs. Should I go look for the letter and post it?

[dissention]

his mind had been made up to go to war with Iraq since he initially advocated it in 1998.

He did not want to invade the country of Iraq in '98. He wanted to go after specific sites that were suspect and he wanted to air strike until Saddam allowed IAEA and UNSCOM back in. He did not want to go in and take control of the country.

[strandinthewind]

I dunno, but this just doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever.

Kerry is one of 100 senators who voted to allow Bush to use force against Iraq if Iraq did not comply with UN mandates to reveal and destoy all WMS's in their possession. Kerry did this with the assumption that the intelligence and information presented to him by Dubya was valid.

Now one could agree with that decision or one could not. However, the separate and more important issue is:

Dubya intentionally fabricated lies in order to deceive congress and the public thereby gaining the power to unilaterally declare war on Iraq for whatever purposes he thought were important.

I think that Congress (which would include Kerry) does not bear equal responsibility, nor equal scrutiny, for the situation in Iraq than the Bush administration. Period. I think if Kerry would have known what Bush was up to, he wouldn't have voted the way he did.

I agree that some members of Congress may have based their decision on W's lies. But, my point is Kerry gave the sitting President and apparently any future President the authorization to use force in Iraq to make SH comply with the UN's resolutions. To my knowledge, W's lies did not exist in 1998. Finally, Kerry still to this day condones the invasion of Iraq - his beef is with the way W did it alone and without gathering more world support. So, Kerry himself is not screaming his second vote to allow the executive branch to go to war with Iraq if SH did not comply with the UN's resolutions, was based on W's lies. So, how can people not assert that excuse for him when he does not do so :shrug:

[dissention]

Who could've guessed that pointing out the lie of Ken Lay and Shrub not meeting would've resulted in this behemoth of a thread?

Oy.

[strandinthewind]

He did not want to invade the country of Iraq in '98. He wanted to go after specific sites that were suspect and he wanted to air strike until Saddam allowed IAEA and UNSCOM back in. He did not want to go in and take control of the country.


Here is an article supporting what I am saying - Granted from a right site - but I have no time to research these quotes right now.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/1/27/134653.shtml

[strandinthewind]

Who could've guessed that pointing out the lie of Ken Lay and Shrub not meeting would've resulted in this behemoth of a thread?

Oy.


Darling - it is US we are talking about. You and I (along with the lovely and talented Goldie :xoxo: ) could argue the paint off of the wall :laugh:

AND - I think we all get what we are saying. We just do not agree with each other. That, of course, is because I am always right :rolleyes: :laugh:

[dissention]

Here is an article supporting what I am saying - Granted from a right site - but I have no time to research these quotes right now.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/1/27/134653.shtml

I'll wait until you have time, I won't go to Newsmax and expect the truth. Same for Drudge, Free Republic, Faux News, and New York Post.

So, here's a direct quote from the joint Senate letter, signed by Kerry:

"In light of these developments, we urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraq sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

Hmmm, and he even says "if appropriate." ;)

[strandinthewind]

I'll wait until you have time, I won't go to Newsmax and expect the truth. Same for Drudge, Free Republic, Faux News, and New York Post.

So, here's a direct quote from the joint Senate letter, signed by Kerry:

"In light of these developments, we urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraq sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

Hmmm, and he even says "if appropriate." ;)

I know and Clinton did send missles, thus killing Iraqi's. How is that different from what W did. I mean it is on a smaller scale, but people died nonetheless. From that vantage point, it can be said with truth that Clinton and W both had military action in Iraq that Kerry supported and both based it on the US' intelligence regarding the WMD. So, IMO, if you blame one, you have to blame both.

[dissention]

Darling - it is US we are talking about. You and I (along with the lovely and talented Goldie :xoxo: ) could argue the paint off of the wall :laugh:

Yeah, then we'd argue if it was the fault of the R's or the D's that allowed the sale of paint with lead. :lol:

[dissention]

I know and Clinton did send missles, thus killing Iraqi's. How is that different from what W did. I mean it is on a smaller scale, but people died nonetheless. From that vantage point, it can be said with truth that Clinton and W both had military action in Iraq that Kerry supported and both based it on the US' intelligence regarding the WMD. So, IMO, if you blame one, you have to blame both.

Okay. A few missiles sent on the part of Clinton, as opposed to the actual invasion of a country. You really need some perspective, Jason.

[strandinthewind]

from
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2002_1009.html


In this October 9, 2002, specch, which I think I have cited before :laugh: , Kerry states (in part):

I have said publicly for years that weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein pose a real and grave threat to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. Saddam Hussein's record bears this out. He has continually failed to meet the obligations imposed by the international community on Iraq at the end of the Persian Gulf War to declare and destroy its weapons of mass destruction and delivery systems and to forego the development of nuclear weapons. During the seven years of weapons inspections, the Iraqi regime repeatedly frustrated the work of the UNSCOM (UN Special Commission) inspectors, culminating in 1998 in their ouster. Even during the period of inspections, Iraq never fully accounted for major gaps and inconsistencies in declarations provided to the inspectors of its pre-Gulf War WMD programs nor did the Iraqi regime provide credible proof that it had completely destroyed its weapons stockpiles and production infrastructure.

It is clear that in the four years since the UNSCOM inspectors were forced out, Saddam Hussein has continued his quest for weapons of mass destruction. According to the CIA's unclassified report released last Friday, Iraq has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of the 150 kilometer restriction imposed by the United Nations in the ceasefire resolution. Although Iraq's chemical weapons capability was reduced during the UNSCOM inspections, Iraq has maintained its chemical weapons effort over the last four years. Evidence suggests that it has begun renewed production of chemical warfare agents, probably including mustard gas, sarin, cyclosarin and VX. Intelligence reports show that Iraq has invested more heavily in its biological weapons programs over the last four years, with the result that all key aspects of this program - R&D, production and weaponization - are active. Most elements of the program are larger and more advanced than they were before the Gulf War. Iraq has some lethal and incapacitating agents and is capable of quickly producing and weaponizing a variety of such agents, including anthrax, for delivery on a range of vehicles such as bombs, missiles, aerial sprayers and covert operatives which could bring them to the United States homeland. Since inspectors left, the Iraqi regime has energized its missile program - probably now consisting of a few dozen Scud-type missiles with ranges of 650 to 900 kilometers that could hit Israel, Saudi Arabia and other U.S. allies in the region. In addition, Iraq is developing unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), capable of delivering chemical and biological warfare agents, which could threaten Iraq's neighbors as well as American forces in the Persian Gulf.

Prior to the Gulf War, Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program. Although UNSCOM and IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) inspectors learned much about Iraq's efforts in this area, Iraq has failed to provide complete information on all aspects of its program. Iraq has maintained its nuclear scientists and technicians as well as sufficient dual-use manufacturing capability to support a reconstituted nuclear weapons program. Iraqi defectors who once worked for Iraq's nuclear weapons establishment have reportedly told American officials that acquiring nuclear weapons is a top priority for Saddam Hussein's regime.

According to the CIA's report, all US intelligence experts agree that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons. There is little question that Saddam Hussein wants to develop nuclear weapons. The more difficult question to answer is when Iraq could actually achieve this goal. That depends on is its ability to acquire weapons-grade fissile material. If Iraq could acquire this material from abroad, the CIA estimates that it could have a nuclear weapon within one year. Absent a foreign supplier, the CIA estimates that Iraq would not be able to produce a weapon until the last half of this decade. Nevertheless, Saddam Hussein's quest for nuclear weapons and his proven willingness to use weapons of mass destruction underline the very serious threat that the Iraqi regime could pose to the United States and others in the international community if left unchecked.

There is no question that Saddam Hussein is a menace and that he has defied the demands made of him by the international community at the end of the Gulf War. But the reason for going to war - if we must fight - is not because Saddam Hussein has failed to deliver Gulf War prisoners or Kuwaiti property. As much as we decry the way he has treated his people, regime change alone is not a sufficient reason for going to war. Regime change has been American policy under the Clinton administration and the current U.S. administration. It is a policy that I support. But regime change in and of itself is not sufficient justification for going to war unless regime change is the only way to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction. As bad as he is, Saddam Hussein, the dictator, is not the cause of war. Saddam Hussein sitting in Baghdad with an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction is a different matter.

In the wake of September 11, who among us can discount the possibility that those weapons might be used against our troops or our allies in the region? And while the administration has failed to prove any direct link between Iraq and the events of September 11, can we afford to ignore the possibility that Saddam Hussein might provide weapons of destruction to some terrorist group bent on destroying the United States? Can we really leave this to chance, when we could eliminate this deadly threat by acting now in concert with the international community, or alone if the threat is imminent -- which it is not now? In my view, we cannot. The Iraqi regime's record over the decade leaves little doubt that Saddam Hussein wants to retain his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and to expand it to include nuclear weapons. We cannot allow him to prevail in that quest. The weapons are an unacceptable threat. And if the Iraqi regime refuses to allow the international community to find and destroy those weapons through a non-negotiable, immediate, unfettered and unconditional inspection process, then together with the international community, we will be justified in going to war to eliminate the threat.


_____________________________________________________________

So, Kerry, like W, thought SH had WMD and posed a very real threat.

[strandinthewind]

Okay. A few missiles sent on the part of Clinton, as opposed to the actual invasion of a country. You really need some perspective, Jason.

Hello - I said it was a smaller scale didn't I. Thus, I have perspective :laugh: I am just saying that if you fault W for invading the country, then you have to fault Kerry and Clinton equally becuase they killed innocent Iraqi's based on what Kerry and Clinton call essentially the same intelligence. I guess your perspective is it was okay for the latter to do so because it was just a few missiles - but a full scale invasion (which likely could have been the result if Iraq had bombed Isreal in esponse to us in 1998) is just too much :shrug: In any event, Kerry used the same rationale to authorize Clinton that he used to authorize W. So, Clinton's actions are moot. It is Kerry's that are important. his minset was the same. He wanted and authorized military action with Iraq because he, like W, believed the intelligence that said SH had WMD and was a threat to world peace. So, how does that make him differ from W. IMO, it does not. It makes their mindset and reasons for going to war the same.

[gldstwmn]

OF COURSE YOU ARE!!!!!!! JEEZUM CROW, WHAT DO YOU EAT?! :eek:

The entire crux of your arguments is that Bush wouldn't be bad if the Democrats didn't enable him.

Uh huh. :nod: BTW, are you listening to Palast on Randi?

[gldstwmn]

Bless your heart, then and again, why did Kerry want to do the same thing in 98 and why has Kerry not said invading Iraq in and of itself was morally wrong. He has not and instead said he would have invaded Iraq, but done it diffrerenty. But, you are right, W made the decision to invade Iraq and his admin. has made a HUGE mess due to their ignorant miscalculations and their fevered rush to get there - ALL of that is on W's shoulders alone - he alone it to blame - blame no one else but W :cool: I am just saying that if you villify W for it, them you must villify Kerry because he said he would have invaded Iraq as well and indeed he called for Clinton to do it in 98. How is that excusing W. It is not.

Once, again, the title of this thread is Enron Tapes.

[strandinthewind]

Uh huh. :nod: BTW, are you listening to Palast on Randi?
Rubbish, I have consistently said W is bad without any help from the D's. My beef is the D's do not fight him enough and often agree with him and allow him the means to be bad. So, I think the D's are concurrently bad for that. I am not saying the complacency of the D's in any way takes away from W's bad acts. Any reading of that intent into my posts is incorrect and hopefully, herein clarified.

[strandinthewind]

Once, again, the title of this thread is Enron Tapes.

I think we have moved on :laugh: But and again, Gov. W is not solely to blame for the Enron fiasco. Clinton is also to blame IMO because his DOJ did not keep an adequate watch. Note, they are boith 100% at fault IMO - one's fault does not negate the other's fault.

[gldstwmn]

I dunno, but this just doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever.

Kerry is one of 100 senators who voted to allow Bush to use force against Iraq if Iraq did not comply with UN mandates to reveal and destoy all WMS's in their possession. Kerry did this with the assumption that the intelligence and information presented to him by Dubya was valid.

Now one could agree with that decision or one could not. However, the separate and more important issue is:

Dubya intentionally fabricated lies in order to deceive congress and the public thereby gaining the power to unilaterally declare war on Iraq for whatever purposes he thought were important.

I think that Congress (which would include Kerry) does not bear equal responsibility, nor equal scrutiny, for the situation in Iraq than the Bush administration. Period. I think if Kerry would have known what Bush was up to, he wouldn't have voted the way he did.

Don't forget that Bush was to go back to Congress again and he did not, he went ahead and invaded a country which he knew had no WMD's.

[gldstwmn]

Who could've guessed that pointing out the lie of Ken Lay and Shrub not meeting would've resulted in this behemoth of a thread?

Oy.

Clinton's penis knew. It's all it's fault. :lol: :lol: :lol:

[gldstwmn]

Here is an article supporting what I am saying - Granted from a right site - but I have no time to research these quotes right now.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/1/27/134653.shtml

Major foul. NewsMax is ****. I think they're also linked to that freak show, Storm Watch or Storm Front or whatever that Neo-Nazi site is called. I mean really, check your sources.

[gldstwmn]

Rubbish, I have consistently said W is bad without any help from the D's. My beef is the D's do not fight him enough and often agree with him and allow him the means to be bad. So, I think the D's are concurrently bad for that. I am not saying the complacency of the D's in any way takes away from W's bad acts. Any reading of that intent into my posts is incorrect and hopefully, herein clarified.

Whatever. :shrug:

[dissention]

Clinton's penis knew. It's all it's fault. :lol: :lol: :lol:

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

That damn head of his is always getting him in trouble!

[dissention]

Uh huh. :nod: BTW, are you listening to Palast on Randi?

:nod: :nod:

Must you ask? :lol:

[dissention]

from
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2002_1009.html


In this October 9, 2002, specch, which I think I have cited before :laugh: , Kerry states (in part):

Yes, and that is from '02, not '98. He didn't want to go to war in '98. :wavey:

[dissention]

Don't forget that Bush was to go back to Congress again and he did not, he went ahead and invaded a country which he knew had no WMD's.

Don't forget that he went behind Congress' back and misused Afghanistan funds, which should have gotten him impeached.

[strandinthewind]

Don't forget that Bush was to go back to Congress again and he did not, he went ahead and invaded a country which he knew had no WMD's.

with the full support of John Kerry, the Democratic nominee, who fuly shared that belief and continues to share to this day :cool:

I mean come on you guys, I just want to hear you once call a spade a spade :laugh: Wishful thinking I know - but I can wish can't I :laugh:

[gldstwmn]

with the full support of John Kerry, the Democratic nominee, who fuly shared that belief and continues to share to this day :cool:



No. Bush didn't go back to Congress-so no.

[gldstwmn]

:nod: :nod:

Must you ask? :lol:


:lol: :lol: :lol: :wavey:

[strandinthewind]

Yes, and that is from '02, not '98. He didn't want to go to war in '98. :wavey:


Bless your heart, I am beginning to think you are just messing with me because your arguments, which are usually lucid, are making no sense. That 2002 specch indocates Kerry willingly and with full knowledge of all the facts he cared to know voted to allow Bush to go to war. In that 2002 speech, he says for the last decade SH has had WMD and was an immediate threat to the world order. In 1998, he advocated for a sitting President (presumably not limited to Clinton) to use force "if necessary" to make SH comply. Clinton thought is necessary and used force. Then, UNDER THE SAME RATIONALE let me repeat THE SAME RATIONALE one more time THE SAME RATIONALE, Kerry willingly and knowingly voted to allow W to, if necessary, to use force to make SH comply with proving he disarmed. W chose to use more force than Clinton. But, in both events, Kerry voted to allow them to use any force necessary. That to me suggests if not states, Kerry, like W and Clinton, thought SH had WMD and was a threat with them. That also suggests if not states that Kerry, like W and Clinton, fully agreed to use force to make SH comply. So, I think they are in the same boat. I get that Clinton sent a few missiles instead of a full on invasion. But, at the time, everyone was scared to death that SH would resond by sending a few missiles in Isreal, which would then attack Iraq. So, Clinton's few missiles could have very easily turned into what we have now only worse because we would be defending Isreal.

So, this is the last time I am saying this. W was wrong to lie about the Niger stuff and wrong to suggest OBL and SH were bosom buddies. But, W was not off base about the WMD according to Kerry, Clinton, and a host of other D's. So, I think if we say W completely misjudged the WMD, then so did Kerry and Clinton. I AM NOT SAYING that Clinton's and Kerry's involvement excuses W or diminishes his culpability. I am just saying they are all guilty if you do not believe that W ever thought SH had WMD.

[strandinthewind]

No. Bush didn't go back to Congress-so no.

He did not have to and you know it. Kerry had already given him the authority twice, once in 98 and once in 2002. Moreover, the Pres. of the U.S. does not have to ask Congress before manuvering troops - See the War Powers Act.

[strandinthewind]

Clinton's penis knew. It's all it's fault. :lol: :lol: :lol:


I canot believe you guys are making fun of me when I have made a legitimate agrument. You KNOW I am not arguing W is excused because Clinton and Kerry did it too. Let's play fair or not at all. :shocked:

[dissention]

In 1998, he advocated for a sitting President (presumably not limited to Clinton) to use force "if necessary" to make SH comply.

You finally said it! Hooray! :xoxo:

Kerry advocated air strikes to make Saddam comply with IAEA and UNSCOM inspections (you know, the org's that he kicked out after it was discovered that some of the inspectors were US spies). What he did not advocate was invading the country. See the difference?

[strandinthewind]

You finally said it! Hooray! :xoxo:

Kerry advocated air strikes to make Saddam comply with IAEA and UNSCOM inspections (you know, the org's that he kicked out after it was discovered that some of the inspectors were US spies). What he did not advocate was invading the country. See the difference?

I see the difference, but my point is in 2002 he used the same rationale to advocate and support W using force "if necessary" against Iraq and to this day he has not backed off of his position (since 1998) that SH had WMD and was a threat to the world. That is the same position W has. So, the two are in this together IMO. And, I still maintain that the 1998 vote was made with the clear understanding that the missile strikes could start an all out war because it was widely believed at the time that SH would retaliate by striking Isreal. I mean I remember reading about Clinton having to threaten Israel with huge consequences if it responded in kind to SH's threatened retalitory missile launching. So, Clinton's missile launching was made with the full knowledge that it could start a war that would have been IMO far worse than the current one, which does not involve Israel in the fighting, etc.

In the end, I totally get that Kerry did not order the US to invade Iraq. W did and the buck stops there as it concerns W. All I am saying is Kerry has been calling for and promoting this same type of thing since 1998, he has not to this day backed off of that position, and he totally espoused and still espouses the whole SH had WMD and therefore he must be removed rhetoric (i.e. W coerced Kerry into nothing - Kerry was already there and is still there today). I see the slight distinctions in Kerry's position (most of which were made in hindsight) - but to me Kerry is not and never has been against the war in Iraq to remove SH and the WMD. He just, again mostly in hidsight, spun it to say, well although I would have done the same thing, I would not have done it that way. So, Kerry clearly supports the war in Iraq. If someone does not support the war in Iraq and does not believe there are no and never were any WMD, then they have to disagree with Kerry just as they disagree with W on this sole issue (I am not talking about W's lying about the exigent nature of the threat, etc. - that mostly was W on his own). Does that make sense? :cool:

Again, I am no fan of W's. I am just pointing out that W and Kerry were on the same page when it came to invading Iraq and W's lying did not get Kerry there.

[dissention]

I canot believe you guys are making fun of me when I have made a legitimate agrument. You KNOW I am not arguing W is excused because Clinton and Kerry did it too. Let's play fair or not at all. :shocked:

Oh, she was only joking, doll. And it gave me a hearty laugh, how about you? :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

Oh, she was only joking, doll. And it gave me a hearty laugh, how about you? :laugh:


I know - I was just in a mood last night!!!!!!! No harm no foul - you pinko commie liberal :xoxo: :) :thumbsup: :laugh:

[dissention]

I know - I was just in a mood last night!!!!!!! No harm no foul - you pinko commie liberal :xoxo: :) :thumbsup: :laugh:

You can add card-carrying ACLU member to that, thankyouverymuch. :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

Speaking of the ACLU and since this thread has gone everywhere but on topic :laugh: - did you see the City of LA caved and agreed to take the tiny cross off of city's seal. They left the pagan goddess Pamona on it, but they took the cross off :laugh: I mean don't ya think the ACLU should have asked for both to be removed, which I think in theory they should have done even though I get the point that the cross was there to symbolize the monks founding the "City of the Angels" :laugh:

[The Tower]

Speaking of the ACLU and since this thread has gone everywhere but on topic :laugh: - did you see the City of LA caved and agreed to take the tiny cross off of city's seal. They left the pagan goddess Pamona on it, but they took the cross off :laugh: I mean don't ya think the ACLU should have asked for both to be removed, which I think in theory they should have done even though I get the point that the cross was there to symbolize the monks founding the "City of the Angels" :laugh:

Considering that the worship of Pomona is a long, long dead religion that has no effect on the world today, I don't really see a conflict.

Didja ever see the South Park xmas episode where they started out banning overt christian references from a school presentation? It kept going and going and going like the energizer bunny until all they were left with was a "black leotard dance" with Philip Glass as the accompaniment.

It amazes me how black and white the world has become. There is no longer the idea of subtlety.

It's kinda like with dollars: I think the "in god we trust" definitely has to go, whereas the pyramid and masonic stuff has no meaning anymore.

[strandinthewind]

Considering that the worship of Pomona is a long, long dead religion that has no effect on the world today, I don't really see a conflict.

Didja ever see the South Park xmas episode where they started out banning overt christian references from a school presentation? It kept going and going and going like the energizer bunny until all they were left with was a "black leotard dance" with Philip Glass as the accompaniment.

It amazes me how black and white the world has become. There is no longer the idea of subtlety.

It's kinda like with dollars: I think the "in god we trust" definitely has to go, whereas the pyramid and masonic stuff has no meaning anymore.

I know - this Christian Coalitionesq woman was on O'Reilly last night screaming about the evil Wiccans still worshipping Pamona, which prompted the Rev. Barry Lynn to shriek about removing all religious symbols from all public space. I mean there is a difference in my head to the tiny cross (put in I think in 1947) right next to Pamona on the LA shield and some judge in AL putting a several ton and huge granite replica of the 10 Commandments and saying "THIS IS THE LAW HERE" :laugh: But, if anyone is to blame, it is fundamentalist Christians for trying to sneak these little Christian symbols in and lie about the intent. "Under God" in the POA is a good example. I mean that phrase is fairly generic to almost all Americans - it could mean Allah, Buddah, etc. And - the reason it was put in in the 1950's was allegedly to stop "Godless Communism" from taking over America. Then, when ya delve into the issue a little deeper you see the fundamentalist Christians who put forth the measure wanted "Under Jesus" and settled for "Under God." Fast Forward to today and we see the vast majority of Americans think "Under God" has been there since the beginning :shrug: So, I just am indecisive on the whole religious symbol thing. I usually conclude they all have to go because the fundamentalist Christians cannot be trusted not to try to sneak things in with an ostensibly benign intent, and then once many are in, they can say, well look we have all of these. Anyway, food for thought!!!! :cool:

[gldstwmn]

I canot believe you guys are making fun of me when I have made a legitimate agrument. You KNOW I am not arguing W is excused because Clinton and Kerry did it too. Let's play fair or not at all. :shocked:

I'm not making fun of you. Your argument blows, however. Oops! :laugh: :wavey:

[strandinthewind]

I'm not making fun of you. Your argument blows, however. Oops! :laugh: :wavey:

Hateful :laugh:

P.S. a vote for Kerry is a vote that SH had WMD :p

[gldstwmn]

Hateful :laugh:

P.S. a vote for Kerry is a vote that SH had WMD :p

Can you hum that? D'oh! I have to stop now before I hurt myself. :]

[strandinthewind]

Can you hum that? D'oh! I have to stop now before I hurt myself. :]

Honey - I can dance a jig to it. In fact, I sampled Kerry saying it a few days ago and made a rap record!!!! :woohoo:

[dissention]

Honey - I can dance a jig to it. In fact, I sampled Kerry saying it a few days ago and made a rap record!!!! :woohoo:

Burn it to a CD and add any random Bush speech and you'd have a new method of torture. ;) Rummy's open to suggestions now.