Piano World Home Page Forums Restricted and Archives The Coffee Room The Truth Begins To Come Out

I'll be using this post maker for all future posts to topics like these. Relevance be d****d.

I agree with you, JBryan. You are right that such an expenditure of time and money would likely reach the same conclusion we reached the first time -- exonerating Il Duce on all charges. Of course, I the final finding was not really an exoneration on all charges but that there was not enough evidence available to do anything. The same type of conclusion the SEC under Godfather Bush reached about Il Duce.

The first time, of course, we did find out that a man will lie about extra-marital affairs. I, like most people, was shocked to hear this. I assumed men ALWAYS tell the truth about extra-marital affairs. But I was glad to find this out and thought the money and time well spent so we knew this.

George,

I agree with your comments on Corporate America. But... Clinton lied under oath period. He should have been thrown in jail. You only have Mr. Bill to thank for all the millions of dollars that were wasted on the investigation.

Derick

DT, why don't you go back to the Congressional record about 5-6 years and see who was using this tactic then. You might be surprised, but I doubt kind of doubt it.

I suspect you already know, but like so many others you figure it was needed and justified then -- but is not now. Not sure I follow that logic since to me a politician is a politician. But if it makes sense to you, perhaps you can explain it to someone like me who feels all of them should be treated the same.

Derick, yes, he lied under oath and he should have gotten whatever the prosecutor and the courts felt were a just punishment. I have to assume the conclusion reached was felt by those involved to be a fair punishment.

Of course, we were well into the $50,000,000 range and several years into the investigation before we got to any topic that caused lies under oath -- but then, whose counting?

However, Derick, please remember that it all started with questions about a business deal that had previously been investigated and found to have no merit. Sound familiar? In the end, the questions about the business deal were found to actually have no merit -- just as was first stated. I think Il Duce deserves the same consideration to prove his own trustworthiness.

I recognize this is a hard topic for you Derick. On the one hand, you want to support Il Duce so much because of his little War on Civil Liberties and Terrorism. On the other, it is becoming increasingly clear that he and the members of his regime were/are exactly the type of corporate executives you have railed against so often for destroying this country.

It is going to be very interesting to me and others to see which side you come down on.

Let me see if I understand this. Because $70,000,000 was spent investigating Clinton's many activities where there was real evidence of wrongdoing we should, as a pro forma matter, expend a similar amount investigating all politicians whether or not such evidence exists? So far there is no evidence that Bush or Cheney have done anything wrong except, of course, the usual Democrat presumption that all Republicans are crooked.

Let me see if I have your logic right, JBryan...

At the beginning of the Clinton Administration, there were lots of questions about business dealings but little proof. They had previously been investigated and the allegations found to be groundless. Clinton released some documents -- claiming they were all that needed to be released. The Democrats claimed it was all a GOP political setup. The Democrats claimed the GOP had not proven anything, but were just asking questions and connecting dots in a way to smear Clinton. The questions raised more questions, but there still was little proof. So, the GOP raised enough political pressure for us to embark on a $70,000,000 multi-year investigation because of these questions.

You support this having been done.

We now have a situation where there a lots of questions about business dealings. Il Duce and defacto President Cheney claim that all of this has previously been investigated and the allegations found groundless. Il Duce and deFacto President Cheney have released some documents -- claiming they are all that need to be released. The GOP claims this is all a Democratic political set up. The GOP claims the Democrats have not proven anything, but are just asking questions and connecting dots in a way to smear Il Duce and deFacto President Cheney. The questions now being asked are raising more questions, but there still was little proof.

So, you have reached the conclusion that everything that needs to be known is known and we should drop this.

OK, I think I now understand where you are coming from. Thanks.

Regardless of one's political affiliations, that's one hoot of a speech maker! Where's the opposing viewpoint version? (I can easily be amused by all political parties!)

George,

I respectfully disagree with your characterization of events as they unfolded under the Clinton Administration. Your attempts to draw parallels with current events are, to put it charitably, revisionist. I really don't have time right now to walk you down memory lane but I will leave you with the undeniable fact that seven convictions resulted from the Whitewater investigation and the Clintons were not exactly exonerated.

You are right, it is not a perfect parallel. History repeats itself, but seldom exactly. While the major thrust of things then and now are the same, there are some differences. I understand your need to emphasize the differences not the similarities.

And, of course, you are right that the Clinton's were not exonerated. The findings were that there was not enough information to go any futher. This, of course, is the same conclusion reached by Godfather Bush's SEC about his son -- that there was not enough information for a further investigation. While the conclusions are the same, I also understand why you need to find their meanings and implications as being different.

And yes, there were seven convictions from the Clinton investigation. Of course, this was far fewer than those convicted for wrong doing under the eight years of the Reagan Administration. And, of course does not count the number that were pardoned by Godfather Bush for their participation in Iran-Contra before they came to trial.

Of course. we have yet to see how this all plays out in Il Duce's regime. It has only been less than two years so far. But, you are right, we know all we need to know so we should just let it all drop.

So you are right -- why raise any futher questions now? We already know that all the underlings in Il Duce's regime and his past are free of criminal activity -- whereas the underlings in Clinton's Administration and his past were clearly criminals from the beginning and had to be ferreted out.

You have no need to to take the time to explain further, JBryan. I understand completely.

Apparently you don't read very well George so let me reiterate:

The stuff this speechmaker produces have been presented predominantly by one side of the aisle. Did the other side have boilerplate language in the past (and present)? Sure. Did they hysterically prey on emotions with visions of seniors taking their dogs medicine or babies starving? Nope.

If you feel that all of them should be treated the same, then why aren't you presenting articles about Daschle (or others of that political bent) who has the authority to get things done in the legislature? You only seem to strike out at Bush-Cheney in stark constrast to what you have said.

I personally believe that some politicians are bigger crooks than others and favor those who are less likely to steal my money to make themselves look good or, at least, more likely to steal less.

To interject a little commonsense into a non-sensical argument:

In America, fraud is punishable by law. Bad business decisions are not.

If what Cheney supposedly did was fraud, he should be punished. If the CEO of a company is informed by his accountants that what he is doing is accepted accounting practice, is this fraud? No,it isn't.

I suspect that when all the smoke clears, business practices will change because of shareholder demand, but there will be few people in jail. And those people will have been shown to have committed crimes under existing law.

That may be the wisest course.

George,

Ok, I'll tell you what I think...

The investigation into President Bush's business dealing was performed by people who worked for his father. That is not, in my estimation, a fair and impartial investigation. The investigation should be reopened. I'm also TICKED big time that President Bush got one of those "special people" low-interest loans. The same loans he now wants banned.

Cheney's refusal to turn over documentation in the interest of national security is b*llsh*t. All documentation should be turned over, at the very least, to a special panel that would not reveal whatever "classified"
information they supposedly contain.

I'm 100% with the president on the War on Terror, I am not completely with him on many other issues. To be perfectly candid, Democrats, Republicans, liberals and conservatives, all have their heads up their butts. Every once in a while they come up for air and have a lucid thought. Bush is thinking clearly on the War on Terror. He is NOT thinking correctly on corporate reform. I'll tell you who is thinking clearly, Congressman Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

Now I'm going to beat-up the conservatives... Last night I heard Sean Hannity smack down Congressman Sanders on statements he made regarding cleaning up corporate America. Sanders said that more money has been lost in the American economy by corporate executives axing American workers and sending jobs to Mexico, India, China, etc... than by Enron, Worldcom, scandals. Hannity immediately came back, almost word for word, with a statement made by a forum member. Hannity said something to the effect of "You want to put more rules and regulations on the wealth makers of America when we have the greatest free-market economy in the world?"

Sure, it's very easy for Mr. 'I don't have, need or want a brain' Hannity to sit there with his cushy job and $4,000,000 a year salary and say "lay off workers, who cares?". Sanders, however, is out there and knows the devastation caused by job losses and benefit/ pension cuts. Sanders is a good American. Hannity is a rich jackass who doesn't give a sh*t about anyone but himself.

And before this gets the hair on anyone's neck up, I don't care how much Hannity makes. That's not the point. The point is that he is aloof and doesn't want to see the reality of life outside his gated community.

One last point I'll smack the Republicans for... why were they so quick to jump on the "we need new laws" bandwagon to prevent corporate corruption when there are already laws in place? If they simply enforced the already existing laws, we'd have a special CEO jail that serves tea at 4 and finest Beluga Caviar.

It astonishes me how the same people who say that hate crime laws are unnecessary because we already have laws in place, can do a 180 and propose laws on top of laws for corporate executives. I mean it's fine by me, but I'm all for watching CEO's pound out license plates, but I'm also for hate crime laws.

Back to Hannity, a true capitalist pig. How anyone could find it perfectly acceptable for corporate executives to line their pockets after laying off American workers and sending their jobs to Mexico/wherever is beyond me. And how ANYONE can defend this, and it has been defended on this forum, is beyond me. President's Clinton lies and promiscuity pales in comparison.

Derick

I disagree with you on that one. Bernie Sanders would be a card carrying communist if it wasn't for the fact that he wouldn't get reelected.

Larry,

I said Sanders was thinking clearly about corporate reform only. His ideas on that topic do not sound like those of a communist to me.

Derick

P.S. Remember when everyone thought I was a communist? :p

Communist - never!

Socialist...well.... :p

Haha! Very funny .

You have to admit that Sanders is onto something when he complains about American companies firing American workers and sending their jobs to other countries.

And for an American CEO to be REWARDED for that? Come on, that CEO should be tossed in with the Al Quada in Guantanomo Bay.

Republicans won't touch this issue with a 10 foot pole.

Derick

Perhaps that is because those who they hoped to reach do not react to the plight of seniors or starving babies. I certainly would not consider this a good thing about who they were talking to.

Neither do you see me comment about the GOP Congressional leaders. I prefer to comment on those who have the real power to act, not those whose only power comes from their ability to react.

Perhaps you and I have more in common than you think, Derick. <g>