Subject:
|
Re: Newsbits: CA Recall and IMF-Argentina Negotiations
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 15 Aug 2003 18:52:20 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
330 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Carl Nelson wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
> > If your intent is to equate a Enron's years-long
> > concerted fraud with Global Crossings' bankruptcy, I'm afraid you'll need to
> > support your claim.
>
> Just showing some skeletons on the other side. McAuliffe was first to jump
> down Bush's throat for his "involvement" with Enron, but never mind his own
> $18 million profit off Global Crossing that looked as specious as anything
> Bush might have done with Enron!
Not at all. Bush, as an appointed maker-of-policy, is directly positioned to
engage in heavy-duty cronyism. His intimate friendship with Lay directly paid
off for Lay in the form of a key advisory position in closed-door policy
meetings. The fact that Lay's fraud came back to bite him is secondary; his
close ties to the administration implicate both Lay and the administration,
especially considering that Lay and Enron benefitted directly from Dubya's
energy policies (eg, California, etc.).
If you're dragging skeletons out of closets, you should begin with Dubya's
vast archive, and we can go from there. If you're trying to equate McAullife's
role in Global Crossing with Bush's role in Enron, then you must demonstrate how
McAullife enacted policy to benefit Global Crossing. You seem also to imply
that McAullife is somehow complicit in Global Crossing's bankruptcy, and that
this is somehow equivalent to Enron's bankruptcy. To do so, you must
demonstrate that Global Crossing engaged in massive fraud that led directly to
its downfall. If you cannot, then I would ask you to recognize that Global
Crossing is a company that went bankrupt, and also that McAullife invested in
that company (and earned money) prior to its bankruptcy. You can't simply imply
wrongdoing and then claim rhetorical victory; you must demonstrate your case
clearly.
> We'll know in six months to a year or so [ whether the Bush tax cuts yielded
> economic recovery ]. It's speculation until then,
If the economy takes another downturn in the meantime (or simply continues to
decline) will you go on record faulting Dubya's reward-the-rich-for-being-rich
or will you cite other factors? If the latter, then you must admit to selective
reasoning and a double standard; that is, you credit Bush for the good but do
not hold him responsible for the bad.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
41 Messages in This Thread:
  
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
