Pitt is still at the SEC only because his replacement (Donaldson?), has not officially been appointed/confirmed. Not because of some tinfoil hat conspiracy that Bush wants him around for nefarious economic reasons.
Ace brought up Lay. Ace also needs to explain what the heck the reason was for bringing up Lay. Nobody has yet offered any proof (or even logical reason) that Bush should shoulder any blame for the various corporate scandals.
The truth is, Enron brought about it’s own demise. A.Anderson had a role. Both are kaput, all praise the free market, which corrected itself.
The Left has an incredibly irrational hatred of Bush. It blinds them to the truth.
All of this leftist, tree-hugging gerrrymandering is making me sick. We are talking about a president who took over the office from the person who defiled the office like no other has come close. Perhaps the reason so many people have a problem with Bush is because what Clinton did while he was in office did nothing but create an absolute lack of respect for the position of Commander-in-Chief.
You think its the Gerrymandering ? Are you certain you didn’t just get a bowl of bad chowder at the meeting last night ? The reason I ask is because you seem a trifle clamatorial this morning, and gerrymandering doesn’t usually do that.
“Tree-hugging”? “Gerrymandering”? Are you sure you’re in the right thread? Or maybe those words mean something else in your own private language.
It is to laugh. If we’re talking about defiling the office, I’m afraid Richard Nixon wins that one with little argument. No one’s arguing that Clinton wasn’t a sexual predator who had extramarital sex in the Oval Office. But that represents more a betrayal of his marriage vows than his oath of office (and he wasn’t the first to do so, not by a long shot). If you meant the legal word-wrangling during the Starr investigation, I’m afraid that more mud landed on the Republicans during that one than on the Clinton administration (not that Clinton came out terribly clean either).
OTOH, as others have pointed out, Bush Jr. and his administration have done a lot to undermine the Constitution he’s sworn to uphold, not to mention handing out heaps of public money to those least in need of it. Given the choice between someone who used his power to fill his pockets and take away my rights, and someone who used it to get laid, I’ll take the philanderer every time.
Yes. You mean that you think all Democrats are unpatriotic commie pinkos. I mean wait, no. What do you mean? I believe you said:
As long as you don’t want me to hyper-analyze, perhaps you can be clearer about your meaning. What conservatives fear government? Who laughs them off as paranoid hicks? What makes you think that the people in this thread who are concerned about freedom are Democrats? And why do you think you can divide the world into converatives and Democrats?
Right. I read them if you post them, and take them seriously, because we are having a debate, not a fight.
Yes. I am your worst nightmare. One of “those” people who won’t let your biased parroting of right-wing talk-radio go uncommented upon. I’ll keep doing it as long as your posts show how uncritical of your assumptions your thinking is. The point is fight ignorance, not perpetuate it.
We live in such a politically balanced country.
Too bad the media leans to the left.
A conservatives only access to views that oppose the lefties is talk radio.
The lefties have the printed media and the righties have talk radio. Don`t knock the guy for parroting “right- wing talk- radio”.
You probably get most of the info for your views from left leaning media sources. Sheesh.
Can you honestly say you take the info from both sides and form your own opinion? Or do you taint your mind with a predisposition to the leftist coverage?
Do you have a cite, from a reasonably unbiased source, for the latter?
Ever watched Fox News Channel?
Ever read the Wall Street Journal?
Both conservative and liberal views are pretty well represented in the press, IMO.
I get most of my views from thinking. And I assume that other dopers do, too. That’s why I try to take people’s comments seriously, when intended that way.
“Taint my mind”? Take a deep breath yourself, dude.
I’m a reasonably smart fellow who’s hyper-attuned to the biases in all newsmedia sources I encounter. If you parse what you read/see/hear for bias, you can usually extract what you feel to be the facts, and interpret them yourself.
That doesn’t protect you from missing facts that particular media ignore, but if you’re a news ominvore, you hear many sides. For example, Mother Jones might say that the Bush tax-cut plan is not a stimulus package but a handout to the wealthiest half-percent of taxpayers. And the WSJ might say it has real stimulative ability. Then I, you, greenteeth, or any other responsible voter can decide what they think it is. Your political leaning should have nothing to do with getting the facts, just with how you choose to interpret them.
Aside from Fox news and SOME print (the WSJ included). The general media outlets are more liberal than conservative. I dont have a cite (they dont openly admit), I can see that when I read and watch them. You sort of admitted it yourself when you threw out Fox as a conservative source and no one else.
That doesn`t bother me so much, because I need to know what the left is saying and thinking to be able to counter or agree.
I`m glad you take the facts into consideration before you make judgement.
My point is that you have deeply implanted views as to the way things should be, so naturally you lean towards the liberal views offerred up in society, its just natural dude, dont be offended.
From you,
“Your political leaning should have nothing to do with getting the facts, just with how you choose to interpret them.”
Facts are facts, wether you choose to ignore them is different then how you choose to interpret them. I don`t think a fact is meant to be interpreted. A conclusion can be interpreted from taking all the facts into consideration. Otherwise I agree with you.
If it contains as much handwaving as the last two, I don’t imagine we’ve missed much.
Laughably, you said “So even though most of the accounting shell-game took place during the previous administration,” when in fact, the accounting shell-games got going in Houston, Texas. In the 90’s. Where Bush was governor.
Maybe we could assume Dubya wouldn’t try to investigate his bestest buddy, and main fundraiser, hmm? Wasn’t this the man who bragged he had “unlimited access” to the Bush White House? The same top fundraiser who was appointed to the Energy Dept. transition team? Could that be why Bush drags his feet whenever anyone uses a word with SEC in it?
Whatever. I’m sure that’s all “tinfoil hat theory,” or something. And as regards to your handwaving, straw-man beating, question-abandoning responses: The Scylla position is already filled, you silly goose.
I’m posting this here, at 3:06 PM EST on February 4, 2002, as a place-marker for evidence I hope to be able to present in the very near future. There are good reasons why I cannot speak of it now. Here’s a code-key for future reference: 51714191.
You may cry “bullshit,” jeer, and accuse me of showboating all you like unless and until someone returns with the news. Now if you’ll excuse me, I’ve got two birds trapped in that shrub over there, and if I can just pour salt on their tails…
Well, that’s exactly the way to convince us of your point. You’ve managed to label us as everything you apparently despise. Go you.
And “gerrymandering?” Who the hell says “gerrymandering?”
If by “defiled the office,” you’re referring to the Lewinsky scandal, just drop it already. Lots of people cheat. It was a mistake. People make mistakes. Clinton is human. He admitted to his mistake. Let’s just forget it and get on with our lives. Clinton did so many good things during his time in office – negotiating peace with other countries, sending goodwill advocates to nations we had poor relations with, things like that. The idea that one slip of moral judgement can negate any positive things a politician has done is bullshit.
In my opinion, Bush has done far more to defile the presidency by jumping on every chance he has to exploit national tragedies to further his own ends.
Yes, Enron had unprecedented control over the White House, and nigh unlimited access to the President. Such was the extent of Lay’s power, that all he had to do was snap his fingers, and Bush bailed Enron out of its financial death-spiral. What? Bush did nothing of the sort? You say Mr. Lay tried, unsuccessfully, to talk to Bush for months before Enron collapsed, and Bush didn’t even give him the time of day? Whoops, guess it’s time to come up with a new line of anti-Bush rhetoric.
Enron was a terrific example of what endless campaign contributions will get you when it comes time to redeem your quids for Presidential quos: Zilch. At least where the Bush administration is concerned.
Jeff
Yes, I’d forgotten to respond to this mistaken nitpick.
The Bible might not actually say what G-d named each star, but it clearly says that he did name them. Psalms 147:4 - “He determines the number of the stars and calls them each by name.”
