Enron Tapes!!!
 

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.

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

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..

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

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:

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.

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.

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.

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:

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...

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/arti...28/12723.shtml

Here is another from a perhaps more reputable source:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=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:

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:

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.

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.

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:

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

Same bad argument, different Democrat.

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:

[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.

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:

[QUOTE=gldstwmn]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.

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.

Republican bad because Democrat bad. Ug.

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?

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 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:

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.

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

(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.

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.

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:

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?

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*

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.

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.

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

http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/util.../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.

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.