Ken Lay is going to the slammer.
- posted
17 years ago
Ken Lay is going to the slammer.
Well, IF lay is a personal buddy as you say he is then don't you suppose that Bush will pardon him in a couple years like clinton pardoned his old drinking buddy.
Art announces:
In a Toyota?
Geoff
It's a lie that this is a *Bush* or a *Republican* thing. Not even the MSM is going there. I mean its' been known for YEARS that Enron had dealings with and contributed to BOTH parties. In the early stages of the scandal, Joe Lieberman headed an investigation but quickly discovered Democrat ties. That investigation was never heard from again. Seems as though Clinton was a golfing buddy of Lays'. Seems as though they vacationed together in Colorado. Clintons' close friend Mac Mclarty had been friends with Lay since Mclarty was head of Arkansas' largest natural-gas utility. Lay advised Clinton on energy issues.In 96' Clinton helped Enron get a $3 billion dollar power plant project in India. In return Enron contributed $100,000 to the Democrats. The Clinton administration agreed to finance 19 of 20 Enron projects from
93' to 2000' to build power plants,natural-gas pipelines and energy facilities around the World. Enron recieved around 1.2 billion dollars in subsidized Government loans during Clintons' years, while Enron was contributing nearly $2 million to the Democrats. According to the Center for Responsive Politics 751 Congressional Democrats and 29 Senate Democrats recieved Enron contributions. There's more, more, more. On the other hand, although Republicans received a lot of money from Enron, Bush did not always go along with Lays' wishes. For example Bush declined the KYOTA Treaty which Enron was for because they could make money trading pollution credits. Bush went against Enron over caps on wholesale power prices in California. Enrons' stocks plummeted after this. Enron came to Bush for help and he refused. It was the Bush judiciary who put Ken Lay away. The Corporate Fraud Task Force which Bush created has charged around 700 defendents with fraud so far (7-12-04) according to Forbes magazine. Art, Why don't you update us on William Jefferson, Torrecelli, Mollohan, Schumer,Mary McCarthy, etc.?-hbuck
I do remember all this now. Isn't it funny how people like Art have such a narrow point of view and can't look at the big picture. If they would get their information from places other than MoveOn.org, CNN, CBS, and places that have been proven to be liars they would begin to think like adults.
Now cut that out, you can NOT bring facts into this NG that disprove what the kooks on the far left want to believe about the President. LOL
mike hunt
Who's saying that. I don't know of anybody that thinks Bush had anything to do with Enron's problem, but Bush and the Republicans di have a cozy relationship with Lay.
The rest of your rantings sound like you get your news from Newsmax.
See I told you the kooks on the far left, like our friend ToMh, will continue to believe what they want to believe about the President regardless of the verifiable facts laid before them
mike hunt
Please post a link to these "verifiable facts"
I'm not denying any influence that Enron had with Clinton, just saying I don't believe all these "facts" and that whatever influence Enron had with Democrats, it's had about 5 times as much with Republicans. Neither party is innocent when it comes to Enron, but the Republicans are certainly far less innocent.
Here are some facts.
Enron's Special Political Access and Influence
Have rules changed from the nineties? It was ok in the clintoon regime and now it's not!! This does not speak well for our system and consistency of law. Lay and others will now pay their lives for this misconception? It seems they do have a basis for appeal. Should clintoon and others be dragged in as a witness in the upcoming appeal? I think that he/they should.
How true. Libertarians have far more on the ball than so-called "conservatives."
[snipped]
It just goes to show that Enron thought they could buy off the politicians so that they would look the other way. It seemed to have worked for all the others, but when President GWB was presented with the facts as to what they were doing he put principle before politics and did the right thing, prosecuting those bastards with the full force of the law.
You speak for Art?
I don't know of anybody that thinks Bush had
Who's saying that?
but Bush and the Republicans di
As did Clinton and the Democrats
You would be wrong. I read anything and everything including left wing sites.
-hbuck
They're all scum, true.
Doesn't; look like five to one to me. Do you think it is illegal to contribute to political parties? To the contrary, is it ones Constitutional right to 'petition the government.'
The posters point was to dispute the 'Bush's buddy goes to jail' post by pointing out Enron and Global Crossing where added by the Clinton admission, but not by the Bush administration
mike hunt
OK 4 to 1
Do you think it is illegal to
No, but if you want to know what your elected officials really stand for, look who their top contributors are.
This is totally incoherent., and as usual you can't post any proof of your "verifiable facts"
No, but he didn't say Bush was responsible for the collaspe of Enron, just said he was Bush's buddie, which is a fact. Hell they even had sleep overs at the White House.
You did
Read my last post and see the facts.
But not this, Right?
People with no grasp of the issue should not embarrass themselves with gibberish posts. The Enron collapse had nothing to do with campaign contributions, Clinton or Bush, you dumbass. It was about greed and fraud.
Clinton + Chinese = Lincoln bedroom.
Actually one reason Enron did as much damage as they did was that Clinton signed Republican passed legislation reducing corporate regulations and stockholder lawsuits. Clinton sucked as a Democrat but he was 10 times better than Bush. And now you can begin your ''suck" jokes.
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.