Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below musclebrains
New member
strong island said:
No problem. I don't get economics. YOu don't read so good.
Down the Tubes with Dubya
- Thread starter musclebrains
- Start date
No problem. I don't get economics. YOu don't read so good.
Longhorn85
New member
musclebrains said:
That's what I love about capitalism. If there is a market, there will be a product.
RyanH
New member
strong island said:
Since you defend the right to "protect" Americans, surely you also agree with other protectionist measures enacted to "protect" Americans. Do you agree with minimum wage laws to protect hard working Americans from unfair employers? Do you agree with federal regulations to protect the price of rising pharmaceutical costs? According to your philosophy you must.
musclebrains
New member
ttlpkg said:
Clowns have always had a market. All the world loves one.
strong island
New member
Good job guys.....we wasted two pages and two hours with no conclusion.
Same time tomorrow?
Same time tomorrow?
musclebrains
New member
Well, I'm going to eat and work out. I'm gonna stop and get a copy of the "Idiot's Guide to Economics" to read on the stairmaster.
circusgirl
New member
arguing is ALWAYS more fun than working.
circusgirl
New member
but not more enjoyable than working OUT. Off to my tkd class I go....
strong island
New member
musclebrains said:
"Economics for Dummies" is a better read. Good pictures.
RyanH
New member
ttlpkg said:
Most of Bush's views are based on information he has been given from his advisers or Cheney. Bush is not an intellectually curious person who deciphers information on his own or attempts to find a new angle to a given situation. Part of the problem with Bush's foreign policy now is that he can't decide which adviser's philosophy to adopt: Should he take the more modern Powell stance on Israel or should he take the more conservative Wolfowitz/Rumsfeld approach? At least Reagan had his own independent philosophy, the same can't be said for Bush.
Longhorn85
New member
RyanH said:
Bush does exactly that. He just doesn't fit your egghead mold of smart guy cuz he wears Cowboy Boots and talks funny. He appointed Powell and Wolfowitz from different camps, along with Rumsfeld and Rice because he wanted differing, honest assements. He is the decision maker.
His latest policy on the mideast clearly has elements of Powell, a little Wolf, a pinch of Rice...
He has had many new angles to old situations, the latest of which is: dump Arafat.
C
CAGED whiteman
Guest
strong island said:
no shit, not to mention the only two people i have seen post on the first 2 pages are the biggest flamers on elite or some stupid annoying cunt up in canada...bush is doing just fine, he has got another one of my votes headed his way!!!!
smallmovesal
New member
smallmovesal
New member
CAGED whiteman said:
why do you have a quotation of a closet homo in your sig?
strong island
New member
Your starting to scare me smalls
strong island
New member
smallmovesal said:
Who is the homo?
smallmovesal
New member
strong island said:
lol why is that?
strong island
New member
smallmovesal said:
You came up with that pic of Dubya really fast...I am starting to think half of your harddrive is taken up by anti Bush propoganda.
smallmovesal
New member
strong island said:
yeah, it comes with the computers up here.
p0ink
New member
umm...
Lieberman's largest contributor is Enrons largest creditor
Enron is likely to try to isolate its trading operations as a new business, with additional investments from its leading banks, J.P. Morgan Chase and Citigroup. <Enron reported in its court filing yesterday that Citigroup's Citibank unit is its largest unsecured creditor, with two loans totaling $3 billion.
JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN (D-CT)
Top Contributors
2002
1 Citigroup Inc $112,546
2 United Technologies $62,000
3 Hartford Financial Services $49,700
4 New Democrat Network $48,398
Remember, Jack Quinn, Johnny Hayes and Gregg Simon were all Algore advisors, and all took cash from Enron. So did Bill Clinton, and many other DNC candidates. Enron's two biggest donations to House members went to Democrats.
I think the democrats are the ones who should start being worried about this whole Enron situation.
Mr. Liberman, were you ever asked by your largest campaign contributor, Citigroup, to look into the Enron matter.
Did Citigroup ever contact you in connection with the billions of dollars they stand to loose in Enron, ask you or your staff to step in on their behalf?
Mr. Lieberman, some people are questioning whether you could have simply stood by and watched as your largest campaign contributor, Citigroup, lost billions of dollars in Enron. What do you say to those people that would accuse you of having some hand in the growing Enron scandal?
Mr. Lieberman, I hate to bring this up, but as you know, Enron's employees have lost a lot of money, some their entire life's savings. What critics are saying is that your involvement in this scandal on behalf of one your contributors, in fact your largest campaign contributor, Citigroup, may have in some way caused Enron employees to loose more money than they would have lost otherwise?
Mr. Lieberman, how do you answer these critic, how do you answer to the financially ruined Enron employees that your involvement helped Citigroup reduce its losses while making the Enron employee losses worse?
Senator Lieberman, will you resign?
Lieberman's largest contributor is Enrons largest creditor
Enron is likely to try to isolate its trading operations as a new business, with additional investments from its leading banks, J.P. Morgan Chase and Citigroup. <Enron reported in its court filing yesterday that Citigroup's Citibank unit is its largest unsecured creditor, with two loans totaling $3 billion.
JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN (D-CT)
Top Contributors
2002
1 Citigroup Inc $112,546
2 United Technologies $62,000
3 Hartford Financial Services $49,700
4 New Democrat Network $48,398
Remember, Jack Quinn, Johnny Hayes and Gregg Simon were all Algore advisors, and all took cash from Enron. So did Bill Clinton, and many other DNC candidates. Enron's two biggest donations to House members went to Democrats.
I think the democrats are the ones who should start being worried about this whole Enron situation.
Mr. Liberman, were you ever asked by your largest campaign contributor, Citigroup, to look into the Enron matter.
Did Citigroup ever contact you in connection with the billions of dollars they stand to loose in Enron, ask you or your staff to step in on their behalf?
Mr. Lieberman, some people are questioning whether you could have simply stood by and watched as your largest campaign contributor, Citigroup, lost billions of dollars in Enron. What do you say to those people that would accuse you of having some hand in the growing Enron scandal?
Mr. Lieberman, I hate to bring this up, but as you know, Enron's employees have lost a lot of money, some their entire life's savings. What critics are saying is that your involvement in this scandal on behalf of one your contributors, in fact your largest campaign contributor, Citigroup, may have in some way caused Enron employees to loose more money than they would have lost otherwise?
Mr. Lieberman, how do you answer these critic, how do you answer to the financially ruined Enron employees that your involvement helped Citigroup reduce its losses while making the Enron employee losses worse?
Senator Lieberman, will you resign?
p0ink
New member
Enron Corp. sought to use its political clout and deep pockets to curry favor with the Clinton administration for a proposed $3 billion power plant project in India, giving $100,000 to the Democratic Party when the deal was being completed.
-
During the Clinton years, Lay and other Enron executives got seats on at least four Energy Department trade missions and at least seven Commerce Department trade trips, including a junket to India.
-
From Jan. 13, 1995, to Jan. 21, 1995, Lay joined late Commerce Secretary Ron Brown on the India junket.
Half way through the mission, two federal export-finance agencies – the Export-Import Bank and the Overseas Private Investment Corp. – announced they had agreed to lend nearly $400 million to an Enron-led group to build a $920 million electric power plant in Dabhoi, India.
The second phase of the power project called for building a 1,320-megawatt plant that would be fired by liquefied natural gas.
The project's overall value was about $3 billion.
Lay pal Mack McLarty, then-White House counselor, helped him close the deal by tracking the project with the U.S. ambassador to New Delhi and briefing Lay on the administration's efforts. (President Clinton even helped. White House documents uncovered by Time in 1997 show he wrote a Nov. 22, 1996, FYI note to McLarty and enclosed a newspaper article on Enron and the power project.)
-
Enron Corporation donated $100,000 to the Democratic National Committee. Six days later, Enron executives were on a trade mission with Commerce Secretary Mickey Kantor to Bosnia and Croatia. With Kantor's support, Enron signed a $100 million contract to build a 150-megawatt power plant.
-
Former Clinton Treasury Secretary and current Citigroup executive Robert Rubin telephoned Treasury Undersecretary Peter Fisher regarding Enron and its creditors on Nov. 8, Treasury spokeswoman Michele Davis said Friday. Rubin "asked Fisher what he thought of the idea of Fisher placing a call to rating agencies to work with Enron's bankers to see if there is an alternative to an immediate downgrade," Davis said. "Fisher responded he didn't think it advisable to make such a call. Rubin said he thought that was a reasonable position. Fisher made no call." The eventual credit downgrades were a final action that pushed the troubled Enron almost immediately into the largest U.S. bankruptcy ever.
-
Ron Brown, Al Gore and Bill Clinton introduced Enron to market managers in Russia, China, Indonesia and India. In India, Enron quickly became involved in one of that country's most massive corruption investigations, contracts were canceled and Enron was out.
-
On the other hand, Enron introduced the Clinton team to Lippo Industries and thence to China's People's Liberation Army (a wonderful source of political cash), to John Huang, another good provider and to nameless, numberless Arabs who never arrived with empty pockets.
-
During the Clinton years, Lay and other Enron executives got seats on at least four Energy Department trade missions and at least seven Commerce Department trade trips, including a junket to India.
-
From Jan. 13, 1995, to Jan. 21, 1995, Lay joined late Commerce Secretary Ron Brown on the India junket.
Half way through the mission, two federal export-finance agencies – the Export-Import Bank and the Overseas Private Investment Corp. – announced they had agreed to lend nearly $400 million to an Enron-led group to build a $920 million electric power plant in Dabhoi, India.
The second phase of the power project called for building a 1,320-megawatt plant that would be fired by liquefied natural gas.
The project's overall value was about $3 billion.
Lay pal Mack McLarty, then-White House counselor, helped him close the deal by tracking the project with the U.S. ambassador to New Delhi and briefing Lay on the administration's efforts. (President Clinton even helped. White House documents uncovered by Time in 1997 show he wrote a Nov. 22, 1996, FYI note to McLarty and enclosed a newspaper article on Enron and the power project.)
-
Enron Corporation donated $100,000 to the Democratic National Committee. Six days later, Enron executives were on a trade mission with Commerce Secretary Mickey Kantor to Bosnia and Croatia. With Kantor's support, Enron signed a $100 million contract to build a 150-megawatt power plant.
-
Former Clinton Treasury Secretary and current Citigroup executive Robert Rubin telephoned Treasury Undersecretary Peter Fisher regarding Enron and its creditors on Nov. 8, Treasury spokeswoman Michele Davis said Friday. Rubin "asked Fisher what he thought of the idea of Fisher placing a call to rating agencies to work with Enron's bankers to see if there is an alternative to an immediate downgrade," Davis said. "Fisher responded he didn't think it advisable to make such a call. Rubin said he thought that was a reasonable position. Fisher made no call." The eventual credit downgrades were a final action that pushed the troubled Enron almost immediately into the largest U.S. bankruptcy ever.
-
Ron Brown, Al Gore and Bill Clinton introduced Enron to market managers in Russia, China, Indonesia and India. In India, Enron quickly became involved in one of that country's most massive corruption investigations, contracts were canceled and Enron was out.
-
On the other hand, Enron introduced the Clinton team to Lippo Industries and thence to China's People's Liberation Army (a wonderful source of political cash), to John Huang, another good provider and to nameless, numberless Arabs who never arrived with empty pockets.
p0ink
New member
all of this was posted awhile ago in another enron thread, so i thought it would be nice for those who may have missed it to read it over. it was in the thread where ryanh declared enron would be another whitewater and completely dismissed all of it because, "it had republican written all over it", but yet never tried to prove any of it wrong. go figure.
the nature boy
New member
damn I thought this was a dubya thread.
huntmaster
New member
The Nature Boy said:
whats the matter --- afraid of the truth. pOink did not bring up Enron--Ryan did.
RyanH---and Musclebrains.----the fact that you think that Bush caused the recession further proves your closed minded stupidity. Did you just start watching the news after Bush was elected????
The economy was headed down --- way down months before Clinton left office. Bush has got it headed back in the right direction, expecially with all the other shit going on.
Strong Island---good karma to you bro. I am sorry I did not see this sooner, when they were ganging you.
Its the same ol shit with these people on here.
the nature boy
New member
I could give a hoot about enron, it's not much of a story to me. I am a litte upset that they won't make the transcripts available for public consumption, that smells a little fishy. if they are so clean why won't they make those transcripts public?
And as for bush making the economy head in the right direction, I don't see it. Maybe you can enlighten me. Please do.
And finally, regarding ganging up on strong island, there was none. Instead he was the one throwing insults all over the place as well as dodging questions. I find that when one must resort to such tactics it kind of takes away from the message. But that's just me.
And as for bush making the economy head in the right direction, I don't see it. Maybe you can enlighten me. Please do.
And finally, regarding ganging up on strong island, there was none. Instead he was the one throwing insults all over the place as well as dodging questions. I find that when one must resort to such tactics it kind of takes away from the message. But that's just me.
musclebrains
New member
huntmaster said:
The fact that your reading comprehension is dubious is of equal concern. Stupidity? Please show me WHERE I said Dubya was responsible for the recession. I said that his response to it sucks. I also said the economic downturn probably did begin before Dubya became president.
If you can't show me where I made this remark which you find adequate to call me "stupid," I'd appreciate your applying the label to yourself.
Last edited:
smallmovesal
New member
The Nature Boy said:
what do you mean? you don't recall that ryan had him at the front, mb had him at the back, and i held the whip and candle wax. you held the video camera!!
strong island
New member
smallmovesal said:
Nice!!!..umm I mean NO, please stop smalls!!
musclebrains
New member
Still waiting on Huntmaster. 
musclebrains said:
The role of the president in causing an economic U-turn is often overstated by adversaries of that President. Every politician is guilty of "please them now, deal with it later" policy-making. It's how you get (re) elected. The budget in 2010, Social Security in 2034, and suddenly both parties are looking onto spending several hundred billion for a prescription drug benefit. Why>? The 2002 elections; both houses are close, and the 2004 election, which will be a close one.
No one apparently remembers that when Congress enacted Medicare, the cost of treatment skyrocketed: doctors, medicines, etc., through the roof. The burden on teh taxpayers increased proportionally. It will happen again if this is not thought through. No one from either party cares, because these are not immediate problems.
That's just shitty journalism. There is no conncetion between the CA power outages and the Alaska push, further, on what grounds does the author assume that is will take 11 years to generate results? That's just biased reporting. Further, the author criticizes Bush for doing something that will be adverse in 2010 (tax cut), and again for doing something that is beneficial in the same time frame. I treat this entire paragraph as proof that journalism is the undergrad major of many low-watt bulbs in college.
While 9-11 strengthened the call for a missile shield, it did not create it. It was a Reagan fantasy. I can't argue for a missile shield, but to Bush's credit, spending for Special Ops troops (the ones that will find Al Qaeda) has increased dramatically.
This is a lot of hyperbole that I can only guess relates to Jose Padilla. Padilla was a lifetime street thug, and while the infringement of the rights of one person is unacceptable if we are to be the true "free society", I am hard-pressed to believe that the potential infringement on the rights of one Jose Padilla has so incensed Mr. Krugman that he must rail against this "injustice".
Having said that, one should heed the words of Julius Caesar in his "beware of him that bangs the drums of patriotisim speech" as well as Ben Franklin's indictment of "he that compromises his liberty for security." The slippery-slope needs to be cut off, and terrorism is a great "patriot-drum".
Interesting that this seeming left-leaner Krugman would criticize Bush for doing nothing about "real problems". As I said before, this is politics as usual. Doubt it? Under Clinton, there were three major terror attacks attributable to Osama bin Laden, and the response was largely to take actions that did not address the problem. US politics is big on "ignore and it goes away" or "push it off 10 years...I'm out in 8." Left or right it is the same. Clinton figured that the terror problem would solve itself, or at least be pre-empted by news about the booming Internet economy. Bush is doing the exact opposite. Opposite, but not different. Krugman should spend his effrots criticizing the sandbox, not the kids playing in it.
That's right they do. 9/11 was an example fo the terror problem festering. This Krugman is a fool.
Middle East policy has been adrift since....I don't know, the Crusades? The economy is going to tank - it's deflation, not contraction. For you journalism majors out there, rudimentary economics: deflation is when prices continue to drop. it is devastating because no one spends money, since they think "it will be cheaper in six months anyway". Deflation feeds itself - this is known as the deflationary sprial and it caused the Great Depression. Hang on for a bumpy economic ride, and don't think that the White House can fix it, whoever occupies.
Will any politician? Nope.
You mean people kiss the President's ass? No shit?! Ther guy who can pick up the phone and get anything in the world has sychopantic aides? A shocker?! what next? And what does this have to do with anything? Why blame Bush for teh policies of Ohio State?
To rein in the departments in fed-land will require a President with the courage and leadership ability unseen since maybe Lincoln. It is a mess and I don't know what it will take to get it under control. While it is dubious this new venture will succeed, it is criticism of Bush for being average.
Ahh the good old days, 1998...when the economic policymaking body called the Federal Reserve was controlled by Alan Greenspan. And who do we have now? Why, it's Alan Greenspan! The problem in the late 90's was contraction after the Internet explosion. It's deflation now, and the typical solutions (lowering interest rates) are not helping. Perhaps Mr. Greenspan has not yet learned from those mistakes.
No politican admits a mistake. Remember I did not have sex...now I need to go back to work for the American people ?
Was that page perforated? Because I am low on toilet paper. Is Krugman an intern? That sounded more like college newspaper editorializing than an attempt at jourmalism.
Matt
musclebrains
New member
One notation:
The Homeland Security agency was actually proposed by a bipartisan committee appointed by Clinton three years before 9/11. (The committee was the US Commission on National SEcurity/21st Century). Clinton had expressed his support of the preliminary finding to create such an agency.
However, Dubya, to whom the final report was given after he was appointed President, rejected it. Now, of course, he acts as if it was his idea. And the media are too amnesiac and lazy to recall the interesting work of the committee whose members included everyone from Gary Hart to Andrew Young and Newt Gingrich -- an ideologically mixed group.
To address some of Matt's points -- those that aren't simple dismissals:
Krugman would certainly agree that the Calif. energy crisis and the Alaska drilling are unrelated. You had better tell that to the Administration which used anxiety over the energy crisis to campaign for opening Alaska. The proposed inflations in the defense budget have no logical relationship to the disastrously successful handiwork of a handful of terrorists, but, guess what, the administration has made it appear so. Krugman's assertion is shitty journalism if you ignore politics at your convenience.
The administration has tried to hold numerous people without charges -- not Padilla alone -- and many have been released thanks to the actions of some courageous federal judges. The Padilla affair is also an incredibly inflated political diversion. Mr. Padilla had $10,000 and no plan and no sources. There is NO evidence against him other than hearsay. He was arrested well over a month before the public announcement of his alleged dirty bomb plan. I guess you think it's coincidence that, after weeks, the feds announced this just as the FBI was under attack for its shoddy work.
You confuse editorializing with journalism. Just as your own response to the editorial column it is colored with irrelevancies -- "all politicians lie" -- an editorial is (unlike you own claim to factuality) calculated as provocation. Indeed, you didn't dispute any of the facts, only their interpretation.
The Homeland Security agency was actually proposed by a bipartisan committee appointed by Clinton three years before 9/11. (The committee was the US Commission on National SEcurity/21st Century). Clinton had expressed his support of the preliminary finding to create such an agency.
However, Dubya, to whom the final report was given after he was appointed President, rejected it. Now, of course, he acts as if it was his idea. And the media are too amnesiac and lazy to recall the interesting work of the committee whose members included everyone from Gary Hart to Andrew Young and Newt Gingrich -- an ideologically mixed group.
To address some of Matt's points -- those that aren't simple dismissals:
Krugman would certainly agree that the Calif. energy crisis and the Alaska drilling are unrelated. You had better tell that to the Administration which used anxiety over the energy crisis to campaign for opening Alaska. The proposed inflations in the defense budget have no logical relationship to the disastrously successful handiwork of a handful of terrorists, but, guess what, the administration has made it appear so. Krugman's assertion is shitty journalism if you ignore politics at your convenience.
The administration has tried to hold numerous people without charges -- not Padilla alone -- and many have been released thanks to the actions of some courageous federal judges. The Padilla affair is also an incredibly inflated political diversion. Mr. Padilla had $10,000 and no plan and no sources. There is NO evidence against him other than hearsay. He was arrested well over a month before the public announcement of his alleged dirty bomb plan. I guess you think it's coincidence that, after weeks, the feds announced this just as the FBI was under attack for its shoddy work.
You confuse editorializing with journalism. Just as your own response to the editorial column it is colored with irrelevancies -- "all politicians lie" -- an editorial is (unlike you own claim to factuality) calculated as provocation. Indeed, you didn't dispute any of the facts, only their interpretation.
Last edited:
the nature boy
New member
Re: Re: Down the Tubes with Dubya
bush did the exact opposite only AFTER 9-11. Where was he before 9-11????? Nowhere! Did he forget about the 1st WTC bombing, the USS cole, and the embassy bombings? I guess so. Bush gets no credit for going after bin ladden and terrorism. Clinton may have not done enough agains Al Queda, but Bush didn't do jack shit. Nobody ever brings that up. He must have assumed that there was some kind of clean slate when it came to Al Queda. Please.
MattTheSkywalker said:
bush did the exact opposite only AFTER 9-11. Where was he before 9-11????? Nowhere! Did he forget about the 1st WTC bombing, the USS cole, and the embassy bombings? I guess so. Bush gets no credit for going after bin ladden and terrorism. Clinton may have not done enough agains Al Queda, but Bush didn't do jack shit. Nobody ever brings that up. He must have assumed that there was some kind of clean slate when it came to Al Queda. Please.
musclebrains
New member
Re: Re: Re: Down the Tubes with Dubya
Matt is just blowing smoke. Clinton appointed the commission to create the agency that Dubya is now calling his own creation. Dubya intentionally rejected the conclusions of that commission -- mainly that terrorism posed a serious enough threat to America to revise our security. And we think it's just a big accident that his administration ignored the warnings it received. Dubya had declared his indifference.
Further, it was Dubya's express wish to avoid any involvement in the Middle East and bring on himself the kind of criticism Clinton did in his peacemaking efforss. That's why he waffled so enormously when the tension in Palestine became so great and the whole world wondered what jetliner he was cruzin' around this go-round. Who? Me? I ain't Clinton!
The Nature Boy said:
Matt is just blowing smoke. Clinton appointed the commission to create the agency that Dubya is now calling his own creation. Dubya intentionally rejected the conclusions of that commission -- mainly that terrorism posed a serious enough threat to America to revise our security. And we think it's just a big accident that his administration ignored the warnings it received. Dubya had declared his indifference.
Further, it was Dubya's express wish to avoid any involvement in the Middle East and bring on himself the kind of criticism Clinton did in his peacemaking efforss. That's why he waffled so enormously when the tension in Palestine became so great and the whole world wondered what jetliner he was cruzin' around this go-round. Who? Me? I ain't Clinton!
the nature boy
New member
well I don't really think Gore is any better. probably smarter, but that's it.
RyanH
New member
p0ink said:
What's your premise? If you are trying to say that the Democrats also accepted money from Enron, well, of course they did---that's an obvious fact, old news. (Note however that the contributions are still far less than the contributions Republicans received from Enron.) Everyone knows it's the Republicans who are in bed with the corrupt energy industry, not the Democrats. During the California black-out which party was pushing for price controls over energy prices? The Democrats, not the Republicans. (even though Enron was intentionally price gouging). Democrats have shown a willingness to stand up against big energy, i.e. Arctic wildlife. When have the Republican ever went against the wishes of the energy industry? Not recently, that's for sure.
Nevertheless, What's really important is that the Clinton Administration did not conduct private meetings with Enron to discuss national policy and then refuse to publicly disclose the minutes from those meetings.
Poink, Why don't you tell us why you think Bush and Cheney are still refusing to release those energy commission minutes, even over the demands of the GAO? Any ideas?
VicTusDeuS
New member
I always find it amusing how statistics show that the more education a person has the more likely they are to vote republican. Maybe this means something. Obviously those complaining about the tax cuts know nothing about economics and love to run their mouths using the same excuse that it always helps the rich. I was a student working throughout my college education and because of President Bush I got $500.00 extra last year. Im happy to have this extra $500.00 that I worked for and not some leeching minority looking for a handout.
strong island said:
p0ink
New member
RyanH said:
ryan, why is it such a crime to consult the energy industry leaders while developing a new energy plan? they are the experts, so it would make sense for the bush administration to ask them. and the reason why the bush administration is refusing to release the minutes is because, they dont have to, and if they were to do so, it would only set a precedent for these people who wish they were/think they are president to continue to harass the executive branch until 2004. plus, if the administration couldnt have any confidential meetings, it would mean less people from the private sector would speak to them.
RyanH
New member
p0ink said:
energy leaders are experts at polluting our environment and leaving taxpayers the bill. environmental groups could have pushed the idea of alternative energy sources, but Bush wouldn't allow that because both he and Cheney are OILMEN. Instead of being concerned about our nation's future, Bush was more concerned with his oil buddies. Bush doesn't want alternative energy sources to be explored because of the negative impact it will have on his cronies' wallets.
Interesting that you are now so concerned with executive privilege. I bet you were equally as concerned when Republicans demanded that President Clinton produce documents in relation to Senator Rodham-Clinton's health care task force, eh? You assertion that groups won't meet with the President of the United States if their conversations aren't confidential is just silly. No group is going to turn down the opportunity to have considerable input into a national policy debate, unless they have something to hide, and well, Enron did, right?
VicTusDeuS
New member
I still think it's funny how all of a sudden this Monica Lewinsky scandel came about and everyone seemed to have forgotten about white water. Call it a conspiracy theory if you must, but I think the dems had their hands in starting it to cover up a much bigger problem..Notice how after admitting to cheating on his wife after publicly lieing about it she goes on without looking the slightest bit angry....Im sure it was all a set up to get our minds off of the corruption of the Clintons..
Too bad for Al Gore. I think he's a nice guy and it was unfortunate for him to get involved with the Clintons. I agree with him 100% on his energy and enviornmental policies and I want nothing more than the oil companies to go bankrupt when we do find an alternative energy source.
I am fully against any of these free social programs though. I dont think once they have ever helped me or anyone else in my family except for taking more money out of our paychecks.
Too bad for Al Gore. I think he's a nice guy and it was unfortunate for him to get involved with the Clintons. I agree with him 100% on his energy and enviornmental policies and I want nothing more than the oil companies to go bankrupt when we do find an alternative energy source.
I am fully against any of these free social programs though. I dont think once they have ever helped me or anyone else in my family except for taking more money out of our paychecks.
VicTusDeuS
New member
I like how they try to throw this kyoto treaty in our face. Obviously on analysis of pro's and con's, it would hurt us more than the good it would create. These damn liberals are funny. If we went on with the kyoto plan, it is possible our national economy would be in great danger...Less people would have jobs which would be less money for their frivalous social programs...
cockdezl said:
mekannik
New member
Old news and old arguments.
It doesn't make a difference how much money was accepted from Enron (or any other "corrupt" contributor) - the point is money was taken. To utilize a defense of "since he took more, he's wrong/more wrong" is ridiculous. Everyone took the money - and unless they gave it back - everyone is wrong and no one has a soapbox to stand on to preach from.
Neither the Democrats or Republicans have the right to point the finger more than the other since they both committed the same misdeed. And unfortunately cockdezl is right - the Democrats were bought off for a lower price. Had they accepted equal dollar amounts - would the stance on Democrats change/disappear?
musclebrains said:
It is not irrelvelant that politics is played a certian way: through lies, emotionalizing, and making today's problems into tomorrow's. The corollary to that is "make your friends (read: large contributors) wealthier".
Drilling in Alaska fits that mold, and other solutions to the looming energy crisis involve taking action right now, which politicians in general are unwilling to do. This energy problem has been on the horizon for quite some time and will become more pronounced.
Good point about the Padilla case - I am ever wary of a department of "Justice" with a crackpot like Ashcroft in charge. Getting him out of there might be enough reason to oust Bush in 2004. Calling it a diversion is a little bit conspiratorial, but perhaps in this case, vigilance is needed.
p0ink
New member
The Truth about Bush & Enron
No policy pals.
By Bill Lickert & Christopher Morris, research associates at the Capital Research Center
February 8, 2002 9:55 a.m.
The media are looking avidly for any signs that collapsed-energy-giant Enron may have had undue influence over the Bush administration's energy policy. They're also completely ignoring Enron's involvement with environmental-activist groups during the Clinton years. Enron has endorsed policy initiatives opposed by the Bush administration, including the high-profile Kyoto Treaty on climate change. And it provided almost $1.5 million in grants to green groups that pushed for Clinton administration global-warming policies the Bush White House now rejects.
Clearly, the whole story hasn't been told. Capital Research Center studies indicate that far from being the Bush administration's closest collaborator, Enron has been a major backer of green groups — groups which have been a thorn in the administration's side since day one. Enron is far from being the champion of Bush environmental policies some want to believe.
During the Clinton administration, Enron was a corporate supporter for those who demanded international energy controls to reduce so-called global warming. From 1994 to 1996, the Enron Foundation contributed $990,000 to the Nature Conservancy. The Conservancy's "Climate Change" project promotes global-warming theories, a key component of the Kyoto Protocol. Indeed, one internal Enron memo — circulated immediately after the 1997 Kyoto meeting — shows the company believed that the treaty could provide it with a financial windfall. According to the memo, which was first reported by the Washington Post, the Kyoto treaty "would do more to promote Enron's business than will almost any other regulatory initiative outside of restructuring the energy and natural-gas industries in Europe and the United States."
Last June, President Bush refused to sign the treaty, saying it "is, in many ways, unrealistic" and that "it's not sound public policy." Despite pressure from green groups, the administration pulled out of last fall's meeting in Marrakesh, Morocco, on the treaty's implementation.
Enron, however, has been at the forefront of the global-warming debate, and was an early and strong supporter of Kyoto and Kyoto's proponents:
In January 1997, the company announced formation of the Enron Renewable Energy Corporation to offer alternatives to the "$250 billion U.S. electricity market." Renewable Energy CEO Tom White supported President Clinton's $6.3 million plan to fight global warming.
Later that year, Enron CEO Kenneth Lay was named a member of President Clinton's "Council on Sustainable Development," joining Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt, EPA Administrator Carol Browner, and Fred Krupp, executive director of the Environmental Defense Fund. The task force also included representatives from the Sierra Club, the National Wildlife Federation, and the Natural Resources Defense Council.
The National Environmental Trust, a public-relations organization heavily funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts to promote environmental policies, worked with Kenneth Lay to place pro-Kyoto editorials (under Lay's signature) in the Houston Chronicle, the Austin-American Statesman, and the Salt Lake City Tribune.
When President Clinton called for a gradual reduction in greenhouse gases, to lay the groundwork for U.S. backing of Kyoto, Enron executives expressed their support. In an Atlanta Constitution article, Enron Senior Vice President Terry Thorn called the announcement "a measured, appropriate action plan given what we know today about global warming. This will unleash the ingenuity of American business to find creative solutions."
Enron also urged the Nature Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and a coalition of Oregon environmental groups to sign a memorandum of agreement endorsing its 1997 purchase of Portland General Electric, despite objections by the state Public Utility Commission. Portland's Willamette Week newspaper has reported that these groups subsequently received grants from Enron totaling nearly $500,000. Among the beneficiaries is Northwest Environmental Advocates ($30,000), which is a member of the Oregon Climate Action Network — a coalition that has lobbied Congress to support Kyoto.
The company itself has said that Kyoto would help its bottom line. Enron and the Bush administration can hardly be said to see eye to eye on energy policy.
No policy pals.
By Bill Lickert & Christopher Morris, research associates at the Capital Research Center
February 8, 2002 9:55 a.m.
The media are looking avidly for any signs that collapsed-energy-giant Enron may have had undue influence over the Bush administration's energy policy. They're also completely ignoring Enron's involvement with environmental-activist groups during the Clinton years. Enron has endorsed policy initiatives opposed by the Bush administration, including the high-profile Kyoto Treaty on climate change. And it provided almost $1.5 million in grants to green groups that pushed for Clinton administration global-warming policies the Bush White House now rejects.
Clearly, the whole story hasn't been told. Capital Research Center studies indicate that far from being the Bush administration's closest collaborator, Enron has been a major backer of green groups — groups which have been a thorn in the administration's side since day one. Enron is far from being the champion of Bush environmental policies some want to believe.
During the Clinton administration, Enron was a corporate supporter for those who demanded international energy controls to reduce so-called global warming. From 1994 to 1996, the Enron Foundation contributed $990,000 to the Nature Conservancy. The Conservancy's "Climate Change" project promotes global-warming theories, a key component of the Kyoto Protocol. Indeed, one internal Enron memo — circulated immediately after the 1997 Kyoto meeting — shows the company believed that the treaty could provide it with a financial windfall. According to the memo, which was first reported by the Washington Post, the Kyoto treaty "would do more to promote Enron's business than will almost any other regulatory initiative outside of restructuring the energy and natural-gas industries in Europe and the United States."
Last June, President Bush refused to sign the treaty, saying it "is, in many ways, unrealistic" and that "it's not sound public policy." Despite pressure from green groups, the administration pulled out of last fall's meeting in Marrakesh, Morocco, on the treaty's implementation.
Enron, however, has been at the forefront of the global-warming debate, and was an early and strong supporter of Kyoto and Kyoto's proponents:
In January 1997, the company announced formation of the Enron Renewable Energy Corporation to offer alternatives to the "$250 billion U.S. electricity market." Renewable Energy CEO Tom White supported President Clinton's $6.3 million plan to fight global warming.
Later that year, Enron CEO Kenneth Lay was named a member of President Clinton's "Council on Sustainable Development," joining Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt, EPA Administrator Carol Browner, and Fred Krupp, executive director of the Environmental Defense Fund. The task force also included representatives from the Sierra Club, the National Wildlife Federation, and the Natural Resources Defense Council.
The National Environmental Trust, a public-relations organization heavily funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts to promote environmental policies, worked with Kenneth Lay to place pro-Kyoto editorials (under Lay's signature) in the Houston Chronicle, the Austin-American Statesman, and the Salt Lake City Tribune.
When President Clinton called for a gradual reduction in greenhouse gases, to lay the groundwork for U.S. backing of Kyoto, Enron executives expressed their support. In an Atlanta Constitution article, Enron Senior Vice President Terry Thorn called the announcement "a measured, appropriate action plan given what we know today about global warming. This will unleash the ingenuity of American business to find creative solutions."
Enron also urged the Nature Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and a coalition of Oregon environmental groups to sign a memorandum of agreement endorsing its 1997 purchase of Portland General Electric, despite objections by the state Public Utility Commission. Portland's Willamette Week newspaper has reported that these groups subsequently received grants from Enron totaling nearly $500,000. Among the beneficiaries is Northwest Environmental Advocates ($30,000), which is a member of the Oregon Climate Action Network — a coalition that has lobbied Congress to support Kyoto.
The company itself has said that Kyoto would help its bottom line. Enron and the Bush administration can hardly be said to see eye to eye on energy policy.
the nature boy
New member
well if it's from the capital research center it just HAS to be correct.
the nature boy
New member
well I try not to do that since he IS pretty bad at that. it's just some news sources I don't trust is all. from both sides of the fence.
Longhorn85
New member
p0ink said:
Oh, well put. I have to see that in print again.
musclebrains
New member
p0ink said:
And of course it plays directly into the hands of the Trilateral Commission, the Axis of Evil and the Romulans.
Honestly your rhetoric is over the top, makes me feel like I'm reliving my childhood living next door to members of the John Birch Society. Here, look close. I think RyanH is in the front row:
p0ink
New member
please explain how this is over the top? the kyoto treaty would take big business out of america because it is 'pollutes' too much and bring it to third world countries that have basically no environmental restrictions whatsoever. this would not only take money out of the US, but pollute the world even more because these third world countries dont give a damn if they fuck up their environment. once again, it is all about fucking the united states. answer me this musclebrains, how come these environmentalist freaks dont piss and moan when other countries drill for oil or pollute their environment, but if the US tries to do it with the cleanest, most advanced technology they piss and moan? sure looks like a double standard to me.
but im not too worried, after these fires, the environmentalist freaks will have lost so much credibility no one will even listen anymore. it is because of them and their fucked up rules that we lost thousands upon thousands of acres of our 'pristine' environment.
but im not too worried, after these fires, the environmentalist freaks will have lost so much credibility no one will even listen anymore. it is because of them and their fucked up rules that we lost thousands upon thousands of acres of our 'pristine' environment.
musclebrains
New member
p0ink said:
Opposing participation in Kyoto is not over the top. YOur immediate designation of those who favor it -- and the vast majority of the world's citizens do -- as anti-American anti-capitalists out to rob America, yadda yadda yadda, is completely unnecessary.
I know this may completely shock you but it is possible to be pro-American and pro-Kyoto. I thought the point of democratic discourse was to allow difference without intellectually deporting people who differ with you.
Sushi X
New member
the way i see it, i know i'm probably alone here, is that we have an obligation to protect our environment. it's not our responsibility to tell other countries what to do with theirs. we can however, offer suggestions and join in treaties such as the kyoto. the thing republicans fail to realize is with freedom comes responsibility. corporations have the freedom to produce what they want as long as it's legal and to distribute it. with that comes responsibility. they have a responsibility not to polute our water ways, our air and our drinking water. republicans feel it's more important to let them throw their trash anywhere and give them corporate welfare. all the while, the taxpayers fit the bill to clean up their mess and we also have to spend our money to buy their product. it's the corporations responsibility to follow EPA guidelines or face the consequences, but there are none under the current admin.
it's not hypocrisy, it's common sense.
now, you've heard my(mine alone) thoughts, now enlighten us with your point of view. and i'm not trying to fight with you p0ink, but you and others often turn this into a bash fest. i've got no beef with you or anyone. each is entitled to his or her own point of view.
it's not hypocrisy, it's common sense.
now, you've heard my(mine alone) thoughts, now enlighten us with your point of view. and i'm not trying to fight with you p0ink, but you and others often turn this into a bash fest. i've got no beef with you or anyone. each is entitled to his or her own point of view.
Longhorn85
New member
Sushi X said:
This is a blatant mischaracterization that sounds good to liberals. Many if not most Americans prefer bottled drinking water these days, and it is produced cheaply and readily available thanks to profitable corporations. Do you drink bottled water? Thank a corporation.
As far as taxpayers paying for the mean old corporations. Most communities are clamoring for more industry and willing to give tax incentives (welfare, as you call it) so they can have more jobs, buy more stuff, drive newer cars, etc.
You don't have to buy any product, but if there was no need, there wouldn't be products. Capitalism is a thing of beauty!
VicTusDeuS
New member
Sushi X said:
Is that really how republicans feel? Im sure their intentions are to pollute the country because even though they live here too, they "feel" its great to pollute our wonderful lands...
musclebrains
New member
VicTusDeuS said:
Is that really how republicans feel? Im sure their intentions are to pollute the country because even though they live here too, they "feel" its great to pollute our wonderful lands...
REminder: Global warming.
mekannik
New member
Global warming?
Didn't a scientific study show that methane was the most harmful green-house gas in the atmosphere? And that the culprits for this production were dairy cows/farms?
OF COURSE! The cows are in it with the Republicans!
And here I was blaming it on those damn dirty apes...
Didn't a scientific study show that methane was the most harmful green-house gas in the atmosphere? And that the culprits for this production were dairy cows/farms?
OF COURSE! The cows are in it with the Republicans!
And here I was blaming it on those damn dirty apes...
musclebrains
New member
Didn't Dubya deny the existence of global warming, receive a report that proved otherwise, grudgingly accepted it and said he wudn't gone do nuthin any ole way?
Sushi X
New member
ttlpkg said:
no i don't drink bottled water cause i see no point in paying 1-2 bucks for 12 oz of H2O when i can get it from a fountain or a sink for free. it's free to me anyways. why bring up a water bottling company? they don't pollute as much as iron working plants, steel plants, chemical companies, oil companies, car companies, and so on.
to respond about republicans and the environment, i did some reading and one thing they feel is the relationship between man and man is more important than that of man and nature therefore they have little concern for the environment. they seem to have little concern for the elderly too. instead they feel it more important to make a buck than to aid their fellow man. you can do both at the same time by the way, it just seems repubs are more concerned with not making the maximum amount possible. oneday they will be elderly too and in need of the same thing, then they will slap themselves for not seeing the big picture earlier in life and will then turn to the dems for their support of elderly assistance.
Similar threads
