[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Chance the Gardener *
Incidentally: I am in the habit of calling them dierises, which busted my pretentiometer. I had it replaced, and my new one goes up to eleven. It has to; believe me.
In my Character Map at work, they’re spelled “diarises”. So there! I’m more pretentious than you. 
Oh tag, the accountants didn’t just cook the books; they rubber-stamped every thing the CEO’s did. And you take Bush’s word that they barely know them? Kenneth Lay was one of his biggest contributors, if not the biggest, and he hardly knows him? He didctated the energy policy for the administration, and Bush hardly knows him? Really now.:rolleyes:
Cap, they weren’t merely accountants, they fulfilled the very specific accounting function of “auditing” as required of all publicly traded companies. And they didn’t rubber-stamp, they suggested the procedure as part of their above the normal service of auditing procedures. But most importantly, none of these procedures were illegal, they were all legal, and they are still legal today.
And the CEOs did not do these things. Ken Lay and Ken Skilling have denied that they knew anything about these off books liabilities, and there is no reason that we shouldn’t take their word for it 100 percent. Practically speaking, it is impossible for a CEO of a company the size of Enron and WorldCom to personally audit their own books. They rely on others to do that for them, as they have said here. These guys aren’t accountants themselves, they are MBAs, captains of industry. They have little people prepare the reports and then someone to prepare an “executive summary” of those reports and someone to orally brief them on that. These guys don’t get paid the big bucks for actually reading the underlying data. Nobody does that anymore. They get paid the big bucks for crushing the competition with brilliant strategies.
I certainly do take President Bush at his word. It’s a free country and I’m entitled to do that. I am a patriot. People who don’t take Bush at his word have to live with that.
Ken Lay and Enron together were not “one” of Bush’s biggest contributors, they were Bush’s biggest contributor, bar none. That doesn’t mean that there was any quid quo pro , and there simply isn’t any evidence of any quid quo pro. There was no special access they had that non-contributors did not have. And before you go mentioning energy policy, remember that it was perfectly appropriate for Enron to have participated in the energy policy because they are an energy company with special expertise in energy issues. And they did not dictate the energy policy, a great number of energy industry specialists participated on the task force. Frankly the environmentalists who complain about being shut out were properly shut out. It was an energy task force, not an environmental task force.
Bush says that he hardly knows Kenneth Lay. Are you really calling the President of the United States a liar? How can you be so cynical. Bush promised to restore honor and dignity to the White House, and for you to call him a liar because some fellow he shook hands with briefly at a fund raiser might possibly be a good friend, what evidence do you have? I’ve only seen a few photos of them together at offical events and fundraisers. I don’t know that outside of official duties that they had any social activities together at all. And to head you off at the pass for Bush giving him the nickname of Kenny Boy, the President gives even his political opponents nicknames. He calls Ted Kennedy Chappie, and George Miller Big George for heavens sake. That doesn’t mean they are friends.
If I may get back to the topic of the OP (Ann Coulter? Remember?) you might be interested in taking a look at the Daily Howler
http://www.dailyhowler.com/
where B. Somersby has spent the last week taking apart various statements in Coulter’s book and pointing where they vary from reality as the rest of us have experienced it.
Fifteen Iguana
Why do newspapers write about “Christian conservatives?” Because they exist, and because they’re important. And why don’t we read about the “atheist left?” Because the group doesn’t exist.
Uhhhh… yeah, OK.
This is the best that Ann Coulter detractors can do?
taggert, those last two posts seemed eerily familiar to me… Perfect verisimilitude.
You’re scary, dude (or dudette).
Xeno, give me a hint – is taggert Ann Richards? I heard Ann was responsible for the California Energy Debacle, and it was not our honorable president deflecting responsibility again so STOP SAYING THAT!
Well, I’ll be dadgummed. My Webster’s New American Dictionary says it’s spelled dieresis—which means we’re both wrong! So I’m thus far more pretentious that you because I resorted to old-fashioned print rather than the handier MS Word spellchecker.
Ah, wait - I’m at work now, and it says “diaeresis”. And this has to be right, because Microsoft would never be wrong.
Heck, I still call 'em umlauts.
Aw, cool! That figures, since most of our grammar terms come from Latin. Furthermore, while writing diaeresis would be correct, you could also write diæresis, which is better in that it’s more pretentiouser. I mean, I write Cæsar instead of Caesar, so it’s only logical for me.
Further, if you want to call them umlauts, fine; but if you want to tack on some pretention, you’ll pluralize is umläute, the proper German way, which is doubly cool because you get to use foreign grammar rules and a diæresis!
I wouldn’t be worried about Anthracite so much as Coldfire. Those Nederlanderers can be pretty touchy about their damn dikes.
In my book here, the “æ” is called “ash” or “ligature”. 
I feel like I’ve been hooked up to a diæresis machine!
A ligature! Wow! I didn’t know its name, either! Now I do, and I will use it pretentiously, you can bet. Say, do you know what œ is called?
English has so many cool words for our abstract symbols! Ampersand, asterisk, parenthesis, carat, elipsis… there are others, but I can’t remember their names. What’s often called the “pound sign” is actually called an octo… octosomething.
But I think we’re getting off the subject, which is pretty much played out, anyway. Conclusion: Ann Coulter is way off her rocker, and taggert should be Speaker of the House of Representatives. Dismissed!
œ is also ligature… (ducks out of thread)
I am Dennis Hastert, how did you know?
I’m still holding my sides from the original comment that “the French have no word for ‘entrepreneur’.” Stop, taggert, you hurt.
Kimstu:
It was recently reported from an aide to Tony Blair that George Bush said to Blair at the G8 summit that “The problem with the French was the they had no word for ‘entrepreneur’.” Of course I know that ‘entrepreneur’ is in fact a French word, as I assume does our great and wise President. After all, he graduated from Harvard and Yale. But the overall point, and I mean no offense to the French, is that the French really don’t reward innovation and risk taking in industry. New ways to make cream sauces are nice and all, but since Pasteur, it has all really been downhill for the French. Oh, yeah, the occasional new concrete formulation and bombing of Greenpeace is all well and good, but real Gaulist innovation has left something to be desired in modern times.
Well, Phil, I’ll tell you. I would be concerned about that, but then I saw what was going on in this thread and decided that this thread wasn’t a very good place for ugly people like myself.
And let me tell you why - starting with the OP, and working our way down…
So many people could not just criticize her opinions, beliefs, political stance, and writings. They wanted to poke at her looks.
I admit I have never read an Ann Coulter article. Ever. From what I gather, she must really antagonize a lot of people with her writings. Well, people should complain about that if they don’t like it - and they do.
But going after her for her looks…and others for their looks…tell me again why that is different than flaming somone over their race, religion, national origin, or sexuality?
Most of us cannot help our looks. Oh, you can keep yourself clean, dress yourself up. But fundamentally, you look how you look.
I am continuously told that bias, bigotry, and discrimination are not “liberal qualities” - that it is only “hateful Republicans” who have those qualities. But you wouldn’t know it from some of the liberals on the SDMB who posted here. Who knew?
I would ask why it is acceptable, and not a bannable violation of the Rules here, to allow personal attacks on celebrities based on their appearance? Or especially on Members here?
I would also ask why the SDMB community allows this to stand here. Is this “fighting ignorance” - personal attacks on the appearance of people? Welcome back to the 3rd Fucking Grade.
And, I would ask - where is the outrage? I can only assume, based on the fact that people here will flame anyone over anything, that the reason people are continuously allowed unrebutted to post slurs against others due to their looks is that the vast, vast majority of the SDMB must be made up of beauty queens and superhunks. And I am in a tiny minority of the ugly, the overweight, the adult acne’d, the untouchables. Or else I’m all alone.
I know the indignant responses that will follow; I’ve flamed on this and seen them before. Go right ahead - the things I’ve quoted above are indefensible. I also know that a person who stoops to judging someone on their personal appearance, race, or ethnicity is not going to change their opinion based on what I say either, and really fits in best not on the SDMB but on Springer, chanting “Y-O-U-U-G-L-Y. you ain’t got no alibi, YOU UGLY!”. Still, I really would like to know why flaming people on their personal appearance is acceptable in the worldview of some here who I otherwise respected.
To me, a person who does this is no better than the racist who clenches his fists in anger at the black man who dares to sit next to him. Or the anti-Semite who makes fun of those “big nosed Jews”. Or the xenophobe who rails against those “damn dirty Mexicans.” Or the homophobe who jokes about taking lesbians and gays out to the Nevada desert and “nuking” them.
Funny.
I ask again the rhetorical question of why this is allowed here? We will close threads over the mere mention of Napster, but not when a person is savaged over something they cannot help, due to their heritage, their ethnicity, and their health - their appearance?
You know…people keep asking me in those SDMB picture and SDMB Dopefest threads, “When are we going to see you, Una?”
Yeah, right. Seeing how some on the SDMB treat ugly people, like I’d want to show you my scars. :rolleyes:
Well I will openly admit to discriminating on the basis of appearance, and Ann is FINE!
As for the rest of you, “you’re a bunch of damn dirty apes!”
Since when is saying a celebrity is ugly a bannable offense? You’re joking, right?
Good heavens, we’re not picking on some helpless dweeb who picks her nose all day long. This is a nasty, hate-filled bitch who happens to be - in the opinion of some - bad looking, to boot. Oh, and might I add that she flaunts her sexuality, uses it as a prop for her dubious opinions?