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.

Pastimes : BS Bar & Grill - Open 24 Hours A Day -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: aladin who wrote (2298)	11/5/2002 2:50:49 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6901

These sort of scandals are a product of bubbles (and to a lesser extent, bull markets in general) and are not dependent on the politics of the administration in office. I remember thinking back in '97, '98, '99 that there had to be a lot of lying and shenanigans going on behind the scenes to create those steadily rising, wondrous earnings reports. The evidence was actually publicly available for anyone who cared to look. It wasn't even that hard to find. "Pro forma earnings"? What be those but a way of lying to investors wanting to believe? This has happened before. Remember '29? (Well, probably not, but you've probably read about it.) The same sort of thing happened under REPUBLICAN administrations then. After the bubble burst and the investigators moved in, the head of the NYSE went to jail and the CEO of First National City Bank (now Citigroup) committed suicide. [NOTE: I'm working from memory on that one. I think it was the head of First National City Bank.] So what's new?

To: aladin who wrote (2298)	11/5/2002 3:15:29 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6901

Please do not use bad language in the BS Bar & Grill. This is not a hockey thread.

To: aladin who wrote (2298)	11/5/2002 4:10:01 PM
From: Karen Lawrence	Respond to of 6901

Here's what you wrote: "Document that strange 'fact'. My recollection is that the Enron scandal broke pretty early in the Bush Administration" I documented the fact and refuted your other claim. So then you called me your family names. Now you're writing a bunch of extraneous bs claiming that I am myopic because you can't seem to focus on the subject at hand. You see, JOHN, we were talking about Enron, which demise you claim came early in Bush's presidency. Oh, what's this, you're bringing Global Crossing into the fray as a red herring? Well, we weren't discussing that were we? Answer: NO. AND where did I say you are a Republican. I did not. You're making things up, a Republican trait LOLOLOL.

To: aladin who wrote (2298)	11/5/2002 4:35:21 PM
From: Karen Lawrence	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6901

You have come to some bogus conclusion. You also wrote: "And that Stimilus package would have given about 1% to Enron - thats incidental not a design. If you thought that was enough to save them you must have learned math from Arthur Anderson." Where did I talk about saving Enron? Answer: I did not. I referred only to Bush's economic stimulus package, which would have given a windfall of funds to several corporations including Enron, This package was put together by Bush (NOT BY ME) before the Enron scandal broke. Why do you bring up Oregon? Because I live in Oregon. That doesn't mean I agree with all that goes on here, ya know. Where do you live? On Sesame Street?