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.

Politics : The Castle -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: MSI who wrote (1012)	1/20/2003 9:21:41 AM
From: i-node	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 7936

I admire such faith... "Kenny Boy" was the largest donor to Bush Junior, and coincidentally is untouchable. Tens of billions were lost through outright fraud and the collapse of Anderson and Enron, yet we're told only a couple of the lower-level functionaries are guilty... In the first place, your statement is untrue. Lay was not the largest contributor to Bush, although he was a substantial contributor. So what? Lay had a ton of money, that isn't unusual. But what REALLY strains "credulity" is the notion that Bush, a man of proven integrity, has somehow been influenced sufficiently to go to Ashcroft, another man of absolute, undeniable integrity, and convinced him to leave Lay alone. THAT strains credulity. It isn't over till it is over. HOWEVER, your simplistic allegation that "Tens of billions were lost through outright fraud and the collapse of Anderson and Enron" does not a fraud case make. Fraud is exceptionally difficult to prove, and I've yet to see a shred of anything that could be called "evidence" in a courtroom against Ken Lay. Again, I appreciate your persistence, but it is clearly based on a misunderstanding of what it takes to put together a fraud case. Read a bio like "Theodore Rex", it's clear the warnings were against concentrations among business combines and bankers I have read it, and while I don't disagree with your statement I disagree with your characterization, which was taken out of context. The entire context was one of concern over concentration of business in the hands of a few weatlthy families. You and I could never agree on this, as you're as liberal as the day is long, and I find liberalism to be the source of [almost] all evil. And before you come back with the "I'm a Libertarian" return, let me just say there is no difference between a Libertarian and a Liberal -- both philosophies are based on a utopian idealism ignorant of the slightest hint of pragmatism.