...Bush's boy just heard the bad news:

HOUSTON - Former Enron Corp. chiefs Kenneth Lay and Jeffrey Skilling were convicted Thursday of conspiracy and securities and wire fraud in one of the biggest business scandals in U.S. history.


I'll bet that he'll get pardoned by 2008.

Ken Lay gives new meaning to the word "Cheetos" (Sorry, sometime this stuff just pops into my head )

Oh now really, didn't Lay and Skilling just practice capitalism to the extreme?
I hope they get the max penalty myself.

I LOVED Mr. Lay's defense on the bank fraud charges. He was too busy to read the contracts so he didn't realize the loans specifically said he couldn't use the money for stocks. Can you imagine telling that to a judge? I was borrowing millions of dollars but was too busy to read the contracts, therefore, the contracts don't apply to me. Or even, I was borrowing twenty bucks and didn't read the contracts, therefore the contracts don't apply to me. If I were the judge, I'd be hard-pressed not to laugh in his face.

I hope they both enjoy LONG prison terms. 5600 people lost their jobs, millions were lost in pension funds and they almost got away with it.

Amorette

...Bush's boy just heard the bad news:

Those damn Republicans! Everyone knows that Lay worked directly for George. That's the only way all that could of happened. No way for it to happen under a Democrat.

If it's big business, war, immigrants, taxes, tax cuts, anything to do with oil companies or just anything bad at all, it's.....those damn Republicans!

Poor, poor Sam....it's not a republican thing, it's a Bush thing. There's a big difference, ya know?

http://www.motherjones.co...6_lay.html

Those damn Republicans......can't hardly wait for the Democrats to save us all.

Uncle Sam is that you?

The sad thing is that Lay and Skilling truly don't believe they've done anything wrong. They believe they were pursuing their self-interest, which in the classic conservative model is the most moral thing one can do. The people they defrauded in the process were less adept at pursuing their own self-interests and therefore were morally inferior and deserving of being left without chairs when the music stopped for Enron. In their eyes, Enron's shareholders, employees and customers got what they deserved for losing the game.

When Lay and Skilling are at the bottom of the social order and no longer the alpha wolves, they'll get their retribution and just may be given a harsh lesson in empathy. We'll see.

Close your eyes and worship the donkey idol all you want.

99% of Enron's illegal acts took place during the Clinton administration. How you can rationally implicate Bush? Please tell me, since Enron was being investigated by the SEC just a few months after he took office, Bush did anything to help Enron.

Who keeps teaching Democrats the chewbacca defense? They must bring out trial lawyer coaches at indoctrination camp

Rick? When the Shrub pardons them both, you may see the real truth. Not likely, but there is always a chance. Trust me. It will happen. Then I suspect that you will find a way to blame that on Bill Clinton too. King George the 2nd will pardon them in the name of...................Justice? Good Texans all look after each other ya know. Wait and see my friend. You guys always seem to find a reason to blame Clinton. Bad economy? Bill made it happen. Good economy? George made it recover. Whatever. Someday you may realize that the man in charge is responsible for the results. And the results suck right now. Not likely that you will ever realize that point, but it is worth a shot. But go ahead and build your defense before the shrub pardons them thiefs. Amuse us please. At the very least, I suspect this will be entertaining.

[This message has been edited by Matt Schmitz (edited 5/26/2006).]

Someday you may realize that the man in charge is responsible for the results. And the results suck right now.

Finally, someone else agrees that the Enron scandal was Clinton's fault!



[This message has been edited by John Morford (edited 5/26/2006).]

Maybe they wouldn't have committed the same exact criminal activities if a Democrat president had been in office.

Maybe they wouldn't have committed the same exact criminal activities if a different Republican was president.

But if they were honest men, would they have committed their crimes at all?

Rick, it seems that your personal Chewbacca/Indoctrination Camp defense go something along the lines of, "Clinton! Trial lawyers! Liberals!" It's hard to escape the impression that you believe that if you throw enough words and terms out there that are deemed negative by the Official Conservative Handbook, that you'll somehow wage an effective argument. Are you still working on that Bait and Switch merit badge? It's a toughie - good luck with that. I hear Ann Coulter pins those on personally (and that should be motivation enough for any Patriot, shouldn't it?).

The Enron scandal was the fault of the two people who got convicted. Not everything has to be pinned on a Dem or Rep. They broke the law, they got caught and now they might possibly spend the rest of their lives in prison(here's hoping).

Honestly, you guys look really silly debating the politics of this issue. The Enron scandal affected thousands of people directly and millions indirectly. These weren't all Republican or Democrats in either case. We all won a small victory by these guys getting what they deserve and I can only hope this administration can see past their financial ties to realize these guys need to stay in jail. Only time will tell.

People like Lay and Skilling will do what they do without regard to what political party is in power at the time. When there is that much money involved, they don't care if it's Clinton, Bush or the King of Siam. They believe they are smart enough to get away with it and that's that.

If someone wants to blame one political party or the other for something like that happening, they are naive. There has been that kind of greed going on for a long time in the world and it will go on until the end of time. Get used to it.

No, Sam - don't get used to it. Complacency exacerbates existing problems and leads to new ones, or haven't you noticed?

Ok, we got those two scumbags, break them and lock them up for 10 years. Now let's go after MT's own Bob Gannon, I can not beleive that douche is still breathing no less breathing free air after the mess he made of MT. POWER.

We still have 1014 shares of that tolit paper (once worth enough to handle my other problem) and it's not worth a dime.....Thanks Bobby hope your living it up in FLA.

The thing about it is....if you read the original post....all I said was "Bush's boy!"

Republicans are so on the defensive that they can't comprehend simple language anymore. The FACT is that Bush and Lay were (and as far as I know still are) good friends. That makes him his boy or his buddy. Not because they are politican and CEO, but because they go fishing in W's boat in Crawford, Texas. That's makes them friends.

It's kinda like the deer_slayer going fishing with Charlie Manson. Does it make me a bad person?

It's the old saying..."Choose your friends wisely." I believe Bush Jr. does choose his friends wisely. He saw a lot of the things he likes in people in Ken Lay.

[This message has been edited by deer_slayer (edited 5/26/2006).]

The Lay-Skilling Charitable Trust
http://www.cartoonwork.co...kedceo.htm

Complacency exacerbates existing problems and leads to new ones, or haven't you noticed?

No where did I say I was content with or unaware of the problem so I am not complacent. I just said that the problem is an old one and will continue to be one. No one is going to change the fact that something along the same lines will happen again in the future. So.....get used to it.

"all I said was 'Bush's boy!'"

Not really...
"Poor, poor Sam....it's not a republican thing, it's a Bush thing"

Only, like I said, that makes zero sense because Bush wasn't even in office yet. It also makes even less sense when you look at the whole picture... powerful people hang out with powerful people. It's a known fact. Sure you can tie Lay to Bush. But I can tie him to Clinton. Lay played golf with Clinton and even stayed at the Clinton White House. He was a big conributor, and this WAS at the time when Enron was doing very illegal things and Clinton WAS president. Just a few more inconvenient facts you won't hear from those with irrational Bush hatred. The rich and powerful often get together. If you believe in guilt by association, you need to remember it cuts both ways.

That said, J. I don't blame Clinton for what happened with Enron. I'm a firm believer in the fact that in a free-market (or free-anything) society, you have to take the good with the bad. Government can't prevent someone from cheating or outright stealing from you, whether its a common thief or a corporate exec. The best government can do is try to punish those who break the rules of the game, and otherwise allow those playing within the rules to compete vigorously. Bad things happen, and there's nothing the government can do about it.

But blaming Bush for Enron is like blaming Jimmy Carter for Vietnam. Like the chewbacca defense, That Does not Make Sense. He wasn't even around. I guess I don't know how trying to mention that fact means I'm trying to pass the blame. I don't blame anyone short of those convicted Enron execs. But let's say someone blamed me for the demise of Enron. Wouldn't the fact that I wasn't even there be meaningful?

[This message has been edited by Rick Kuchynka (edited 5/26/2006).]

Sam, your statement is contradictory. Getting used to something indicates that you're comfortable with the situation - or disinclined to worry, i.e. complacent. Getting used to something is just two words more than getting used. Period. If you don't oppose abhorrent behavior, you condone it. Whether it's an old behavior or an emerging one, it's still abhorrent and worth fighting.

Rick, stating that government can't prevent stealing is just as accurate as saying that business acts in the best interest of everybody. Neither is true. Maybe government can't prevent all stealing, but business can't prevent itself from stealing or exploiting. And it's sure as hell not going to punish itself when it does - rather, it will pat itself on the back and try to make the practice legal or unopposable. It's in the very nature of business. As I've stated before, government and business are both imperfect, but government exists for all while business exists for itself - which do you believe is more likely to care about you?

Getting used to something indicates that you're comfortable with the situation - or disinclined to worry, i.e. complacent.

Well, I'm used to reading you write stuff like "it's still abhorrent and worth fighting" but that certaintly doesn't mean I'm comfortable with it. (although I must say it doesn't worry me much)

The world is full of people that like to sit and write about how bad some things are and we should all join together and fight injuctice while all the time not doing a damn thing besides write about it. So tell me...when you write something like "Whether it's an old behavior or an emerging one, it's still abhorrent and worth fightingjust what have you done as far as "fighting" this problem. I suspect you have done what the overwhelming majority of people do - nothing.

Something like it will happen again and again and again. So...get used to it.

Ken Lay's nickname was "Kenny Boy" until he got indicted. Then Bush tried to distance himself. Surely you remember all the contributions made by Enron executives to the Bush campaign. By the way have you noticed how close the Bush family and the Clintons are now. It is not a republican and a democratic thing. It is a money and power thing. The only difference between the Bush White House and the Clinton White house is intelligence or smarts. Bush bemoaned when he first was elected that it would be easier to accomplish things under a benevolent dictorship. But as hard as Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld tries, they never got around to the benevolent part.

"but government exists for all while business exists for itself"

But what the whole of history has shown is that government is really for those who govern.

What you just said is basically the core belief of socialism.

Yet for all nations that have tried to move to socialism, for some strange reason, the proletariat never seems to assume their (theoretically) rightful control. The ruling class retains their power, with no end in sight. It should be no surprise. The ruling class has unchecked power, and the benevolent (and naive) idea behind socialism will never convince them to relinquish it.

Men in government are every bit as wicked (if not more so) then men in general. If man (I'm speaking in general terms here) is incapable of running business ethically, he is incapable of governing ethically.

Anyone on either the conservative or liberal side should be able to see by our representation in Congress that We the People are not necessarily so adept at electing perfectly upstanding and honest leadership. A consensus could be formed around the impression that nearly all of them are liars and many, plain crooks. How is that markedly better than what we see in day-to-day business? Government is representative. It is not better than the people... it is only entrusted with the people's collective power. That power makes government even more dangerous than the worst of those it represents.

It is an undeniable truth that government unrestrained is at least as (if not more) dangerous than business unrestrained.

[This message has been edited by Rick Kuchynka (edited 5/27/2006).]

Sam - I can tell you what I have not done. I have not grown complacent and I have not come to accept the status quo. If the only thing I can do is this - and I'm not saying it's the only thing I can do - but if it is, then it is still far more than saying, "get used to it" and burying my head in the sand.

Rick - If you're calling a representative democracy socialism, then I'm a little worried for you.

[This message has been edited by Brian A. Reed (edited 5/27/2006).]

Rick....you are the nonsmartest person in the history of this website. Your FOX news-like intelligence continues to shadow us all.

"The ruling class retains their power, with no end in sight. It should be no surprise. The ruling class has unchecked power, and the benevolent (and naive) idea behind socialism will never convince them to relinquish it."

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but you have no %$#@ing idea what you are talking about. Do you have a political science degree? I'm betting no, because the crap coming out of your mouth tells me so. You don't even know what socialism is. I can name you 30 countries or so where socialism has triumphed. Canada, Sweden, the Netherlands, the U.K......

Deer slayer, of course Rick knows what socialism and its evil twin communism are. It was pounded into his head at militia youth camp that the evil of these two systems could be the downfall of capitalism and democracy. As long as Uncle Sam keeps a strong Army and blows up anyone in our way these systems will not prevail because we are Gods chosen people-Rednecks.
Socialism works if you have leaders that are willing to let it work. However, when a leader of any country becomes a dictator and kills millions of people the system is flawed. Much the same with capitalism, when it goes unchecked and corporations are allowed to go unchecked and allowed to steal their employee's pensions and to falsely inflate earnings the system is flawed. It is human greed, ignorance and emotion that fail political systems not political systems that fail people. If you read about true communism it is government by no one. Sounds good to me, if no one is in power how can we go wrong. The system of the Soviet Union, China and Cuba are dictatorships and oligarchies they are not true communist states. Nor will we ever see a true communist state- there is no money in it. So a psuedo-democracy run by giant corporations is what we get. Freedom isn't it grand. The fallacy of the masses. It is all Gordon Gecko's fault.

"Rick....you are the nonsmartest person in the history of this website."

Nonsmartest, eh? I guess I can take that. I've obviously had alot worse said about me.

Beyond that, I'd like to say that there was more in those last two posts to stitch liberalism and socialism together than I could have done in a lifetime. I really thought socialism was dead. Now I see it lives on, masquerading as something different.

Thank you... for yet another thing to consider in November

Touting those "socialist" nations as either completely socialist (moving towards socialism, ok, maybe) or successful is laughable. For the most part Western Europe's economic outlook is horrible, distantly trailing us (and everyone else in the industrialized world) in growth and employment. Our standard of living and productivity (a dirty word in socialist circles) is much higher. And, they're teetering on the brink of an entitlement bankruptcy that'll make our social security mess seem like a picnic. Canada's only upside on the rest of them is that they're next to us (and part of NAFTA). Heck, even China's moving towards capitalism, and finally seeing some success.

Things are so bad in these wonderful "socialist" European nations, that many can't even convince their people to reproduce so they can replace themselves. For the first time in history, we may see a population collapse (in Western Europe) that wasn't brought on by disease, but apathy. (Maybe we could call this plague the "noir death" ) Truly wonderful things for our nation to aspire to.

Oh, and you're right, I don't have a political science degree. I was told (must've been by someone with a political science degree) that you're not allowed to have one of those types of degrees without voting liberal They don't teach you common sense in higher ed anyways though, so I'll just have to get by with what I have.

Van, I can see what you're saying here
"It is human greed, ignorance and emotion that fail political systems not political systems that fail people"

but wouldn't you rather have a system (capitalism) that counts on the inevitability of "human greed" somewhere in society rather than a system (socialism) that banks on it being abolished. Power-hunger and greed can't be put away in a closet. You can't legislate them away. You need a system that accounts for them.

"Sounds good to me, if no one is in power how can we go wrong."

Van, in Utopia, I'd agree with you on socialism. It would be great. But in the real world of personal ambition, pure socialism (or anything close to it) will never exist... ever. The best you'll ever end up with is a ruling class tossing scraps to the masses, like wherever its been tried.

[This message has been edited by Rick Kuchynka (edited 5/29/2006).]

rick...what you fail to realize is that socialism isn't a four letter word. Socialism is on a scale. Just as capitalism is on a scale as well. Now get ready and brace yourself....

Socialism exsists in the USA!!!! Can you believe it. It's called foodstamps. Ask your neighbors about them, because chances are that someone in your neighborhood is on them. It's also called farm subsidies, medicare, medicaid, and a whole host of government programs that provide for the citizens who aren't doing as well as others.

Granted the USA isn't nearly as socialist as countries like the UK, Canada, Sweden, Norway, and the Netherlands that are far more socialist than the USA, but nevertheless socialism does exist. And guess what...McCarthism is dead...there was this thing called the social revolution during the 60's that ended it. Oh that's right, you don't have a History degree, do you?

Here's another news flash: THERE ARE COMMIES IN YOUR STATE!!!! NOT FAR FROM WHERE YOU LIVE!!!! They are called Hutterites. Oh, but I forgot they are not as American as you. Because they don't buy imported crap from Walmart, like the Kuchynkas.

And by the way...having a poly sci degree I know alot of conservatives with the same degree. Only they know what they are talking about, while you only spew the crap you hear from FOX news. So, keep talking about things you don't know about, and maybe if you are lucky you'll get invited to Rush Limbaugh's show, and the two of you can snort muscle relaxers together.

Come on, DS, address the issues. This personal stuff is a poor substitute for meaningful debate. If as a "political science" major, the best argument you can recite pro-socialism is the (irrelevant?) stain of McCarthyism and the 1960's, then I fear you're not really digesting the whole issue.

Everyone knows there are socialist elements in America. I suppose they are in some cases unavoidable. My stance is that socialist tendencies should be absolutely resisted and socialist systems should only be used in cases of last resort... like food stamps.

I really have to wonder why you can't discuss such an interesting and deep topic without having to resort to the same old Fox News/Rush Limbaugh crap. When was the last time you saw a piece about Socialism on Fox? My beliefs are deeply held, but I'm still willing to listen to what you have to say, unless its out of spite rather than reason. Why is it always attack first, ask questions later?

Attack first? Always complaining about the affairs of the country? Offer absolutely no solutions to any question they raise?

Are there some Democrats here?

Rick, I agree with you, I am not trying to personally attack you, as is DS.
For arguments sake, I made the last post. I too believe that in a Utopia all political systems will work. But I for the life of me cannot understand your unwavering defense of the party line when it comes to capitalism. Oh and Deer Slayer you forgot the biggest social contract of all-FARM SUBSIDES. It is a sin to give food stamps to needy families and children but it is righteous to give millions to millionaires.

>>My beliefs are deeply held, but I'm still willing to listen to what you have to say, unless it's out of spite rather than reason. <<

Rick, Yes your beliefs are so deeply held that you cannot see the truth when it is barreling down the highway at you. Nonetheless, I do think you are an intelligent guy who is just set in your ways, sad for such a young man.

Jack Abromoff made me see the light about Conrad Burns and you made me see the light about Conservatives. I believe that on mc.com you actually turn people to the Dark Side of liberalism with your rhetoric so keep up the good work. Do not let the man get you down.

I've never defended the party line. I've just come to the conclusion that one party is closer to my belief system than the other. If that switched, I would switch parties.

Your food stamps/farm subsidies line is a perfect example. I really have no major beef with the food stamp program. If you can limit government assistance to bare essentials, such as food, I think there could possibly be a net benefit.

I fundamentally disagree, however, with farm subsidies. Farm subsidies are a great example of how entitlements creep into your life and never go away. They were brought in during the great depression, and were designed to keep desperate farms afloat. On its face, not necessarily such a bad thing. But three-quarters of a century later, they're still here, through thick and thin, in many cases encouraging farmers to do often non-productive or market-deaf things with their land. Now it's a sacred cow. Republicans and Democrats alike are unable to touch them for the political havoc it would cause. Social security is the same deal on a much larger scale.

I think Republicans should (and many do) fundamentally disagree with the premise of these types of programs. But the pandering nature of our election process makes doing anything untenable. It makes me ill every time I hear about how much bacon Conrad or Max bring back to Montana, and that's why we should reelect them. But unfortunately, who can argue with them for playing the pork card? It works.

Maybe we should look to ourselves for why our system is so broken. How quickly do we allow a helping-hand to become an entitlement? I'm no exception, mind you. It's human nature. And after we hammer out what our entitlements are in life, we spend the rest of our lives trying to defend our entitlements and their precedence over others'. Everyone's squabbling so much over what's theirs, that nobody's working to build anything new or dreaming of something even better.

[This message has been edited by Rick Kuchynka (edited 5/29/2006).]

I am dreaming of the day when the IRS is abolished because we are paying a 3-5% flat tax that takes a 7/8 majority of congress to change. I am dreaming of the day when federal congressional leaders and the president serve one six year term and it doesn't cost 10 million dollar to get elected.

I assure you Rick, some of us are dreaming...