Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Non-Tech : The ENRON Scandal -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Duke of URL© who wrote (2101)	2/1/2002 1:31:26 PM
From: PartyTime	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5185

>>>So it REALLY muddies your argument that Bush was in the spell of Enron, if you follow it through to its logical conclusion. You have plenty at the Federal level. Don't take your eyes of the ball with ankle biting. FOLLOW THE MONEY, as "Deep Throat" said.<<< Follow the money. Good idea and right on! I think both Bushes were very much within the spell of Enron, and I believe there's been more than a sufficientnumber of posts posted on this thread to show this. I look at Enron's spreading of its influential dough as a matter of Democrats getting some money only 'cause America saw two terms of a Democratic Administration and I suspect that most of the Dems who got Enron bucks pulled it in because they were on committees important to Enron, plus a few bones here and there. It seems clear, however, that Enron's primary goal was to get as many Republicans elected as possible, and especially grab the presidency. It did! Never mind Ken Lay, I've got a hunch that the Enron connection between James Baker and the Bushes hasn't quite yet hit the front burner. And we know too well from Florida what Baker means to both Bushes. So I ask: What did Baker mean to Enron? Yes, follow the money. But I also think a basecoach need not give a steal signal to the league's best base stealer when that runner is on base. Sorta like Enron, don't you think?