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.

Strategies & Market Trends : VOLTAIRE'S PORCH-MODERATED -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: stockman_scott who wrote (47671)	2/14/2002 11:58:26 AM
From: Jim Willie CB	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 65232

some growing disdain for wealth creation... troubling it seems the media and individuals alike are moving toward a position where any wealth obtained is illgotten and somehow tainted I dont like this trend MacAuliffe may have done nothing wrong I dont know if Global Crossing's Winnick only built far too aggressively, overusing debt, overpaying for acquisitions, and sold at the top, then good for him but that aint illegal did he know GX would fail? who did? Enron seems like a trueblue collusion conspiracy sham but not all failing corporations are shams recessions take good and bad down I am wondering though about the proximity from Anderson's HQ and Mafia HQ in Chicago ATT failed... any inquisition of Armstrong? he got wealthy during its slide demise-to-be Cisco lost $400 billion in value did Chambers sell $50M at the top? not illegal just maybe he is full of shit, was full of shit, and continue to be full of shit about growth prospects making money is not illegal I hope we dont turn wealth creation into a crime in USA bad trend, but understandable / jim

To: stockman_scott who wrote (47671)	2/14/2002 2:04:44 PM
From: Cactus Jack	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 65232

Scott, This author can't be this stupid, can he?: <<Lay's decision to keep mum was especially strange, bordering on the ludicrous.>> Whether Lay, Fastow or others did everything they're accused of or not, they face HUGE legal bills, potential bankruptcy, and likely criminal prosecution. With those harsh realities ahead of them, why on earth would they waive their constitutional right not to testify against themselves before a bunch of self-serving Congressmen, many of whom are among the practitioners of the world's oldest profession themselves? I am as outraged by what appears to have been a massive shell game at ENE as anyone. Having said that, I don't believe for a second that most members of Congress, both House and Senate, give a hoot about this scandal beyond the publicity they can gain that will help them get reelected. Rant over (for now). jpgill

To: stockman_scott who wrote (47671)	2/14/2002 2:39:40 PM
From: Selectric II	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 65232

Another stupid article that adds nothing to anyone's knowledge or the discussion, imho. Far from "Keeping the Score on Enron", it adds to the confusion. There should be nothing untoward about anyone at any time asserting their Constitutional rights. Further, Lazarus lumps Lay and Skilling into the same phrase as if they're Siamese twins. Also, it's been widely reported elsewhere that Lay was not "hands-on" as Lazarus states. He wasn't even around when most of this stuff came down. Enron's whistleblowing V.P., testifying before Congress right now, seems to debunk Lazarus's assertions about Lay. As to the Global Crossing blurb at the end of the article, using Lazarus's logic, the act of placing a time bomb has no cause/effect relationship to the damage it causes when it goes off. Although it seems clear where his (Lazarus's) politics are, he doesn't seem to have quite thought things through.