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: Raymond Duray who wrote (2965)	2/20/2002 1:22:54 AM
From: The Duke of URL©	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 5185

This Greg Walden of Oregon then is just straight out lying? No wonder they have no problem with Enron. Its almost as if the REAL shareholders of Enron are the politicians who created Enron for the sole purpose of being their own onshore funding vehicle. Once its discovered, they do the dance of the hoohah on television. blame everything on Lay, and go to the next entity. Next, Aramco? Why not, it's an offshore company anyway, they are not subject to us jurisdiction for documents. These people are sickos. The only fear they have about the discovery of the Enron offshore bank accounts is that the address of the Caymen attorney might be simular to their own.

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (2965)	2/20/2002 2:24:33 AM
From: The Duke of URL©	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5185

Now, I understand, I see that Walden's use of the term "free speech" is a buzzword to allow large campaign contributors to continue to speak their wishes in private. I was born at night, ... but not last night. :) Look what I found on the internet: Note the date, this article is four years old. That means they have been successful using the same bullsht for four years. Boy are we dumb. Maybe they are right. publicampaign.org The truth is, Lott, Nickles and McConnell only care about free speech when it's the speech of the wealthy special interests who finance campaigns, especially their's. If they were really interested in campaign reform that promoted political speech, then they would support steps that would insure that more people can speak and have their concerns heard. And since most lawmakers are today dependent on and responsive to the tiny number of Americans who can afford to give a big political contribution, that means making it possible for people to run for office without being beholden to private campaign funders in the first place.