Political Crossfire Forums

Coral · Joined: 13 Apr 2004 Posts: 2791 Location: Hold 'em, Texas

SideTraKd wrote: Has anyone noticed that the Democrats who are always talking about how Bush is so cozy with corporate "cronies", and always bringing up Worldcom and Enron as failures of the Bush administration are suddenly silent on this issue now that people are getting sentenced to prison?

:think:

No I haven't noticed how Democrats have failed to believe that due process eventually puts scoundrels away. Democrats are big supporters of the judicial system and the Constitution powers of the courts.

Grengor · Joined: 02 Mar 2005 Posts: 460

Coral wrote: SideTraKd wrote: Has anyone noticed that the Democrats who are always talking about how Bush is so cozy with corporate "cronies", and always bringing up Worldcom and Enron as failures of the Bush administration are suddenly silent on this issue now that people are getting sentenced to prison?

:think:

No I haven't noticed how Democrats have failed to believe that due process eventually puts scoundrels away. Democrats are big supporters of the judicial system and the Constitution powers of the courts.

OH SNAP! :lol: :lol:

Prog · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 2643

SideTraKd wrote: Has anyone noticed that the Democrats who are always talking about how Bush is so cozy with corporate "cronies", and always bringing up Worldcom and Enron as failures of the Bush administration are suddenly silent on this issue now that people are getting sentenced to prison?

:think:
They're too busy laughing! :lol:

superchick · Joined: 30 Sep 2004 Posts: 6568 Location: US

learn to swim wrote: Lagspike wrote: learn to swim wrote:
If he didn't know what was going on he is guilty of stupidity which is even worse because he should have stepped down due to incompetence. No way in hell he didn't know what was happening.

Sullivan admitted, under oath, that he lied on multiple occasions. Is it going to far to assume he lied to Ebbers?

Doesn't matter EBBER'S WAS THE BOSS AND IN CHARGE OF ALL THAT HAPPENED. I have run a company. It was small but quite busy. The one thing you always know is the books. It is the bread and butter of your business and you have to know what is going on at all times with them.

TOTAL BS if he didn't know. He tried to remove himself from any culpability by adding layers but there is NO WAY a competent CEO of a compnay that big isn't paying attention to the books.

You have no idea what you are talking about. I will give you the fact that there may have been flimsy evidence but that doesn't matter - common sense goes a long way.
Yes, the CFO is in charge of finance. But if you are the CEO and this can happen under your watch what else was going on? That is no excuse. Sullivan wasn't getting over on granpa in the nursing home. There is no way in hell he didn't know. Have you ever sat in on an audit, ever?????? The CEO is present and it happens once a quarter, if you are a publicly traded company, and I believe they were.

learn to swim · Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2005 2:33 pm Post subject:

superchick wrote: learn to swim wrote: Lagspike wrote: learn to swim wrote:
If he didn't know what was going on he is guilty of stupidity which is even worse because he should have stepped down due to incompetence. No way in hell he didn't know what was happening.

Sullivan admitted, under oath, that he lied on multiple occasions. Is it going to far to assume he lied to Ebbers?

Doesn't matter EBBER'S WAS THE BOSS AND IN CHARGE OF ALL THAT HAPPENED. I have run a company. It was small but quite busy. The one thing you always know is the books. It is the bread and butter of your business and you have to know what is going on at all times with them.

TOTAL BS if he didn't know. He tried to remove himself from any culpability by adding layers but there is NO WAY a competent CEO of a compnay that big isn't paying attention to the books.

You have no idea what you are talking about. I will give you the fact that there may have been flimsy evidence but that doesn't matter - common sense goes a long way.
Yes, the CFO is in charge of finance. But if you are the CEO and this can happen under your watch what else was going on? That is no excuse. Sullivan wasn't getting over on granpa in the nursing home. There is no way in hell he didn't know. Have you ever sat in on an audit, ever?????? The CEO is present and it happens once a quarter, if you are a publicly traded company, and I believe they were.

Yes, they were publicly traded. That is why "I didn't know" isn't / cannot be a defense. It was his job to know. He ruined people's retirements by either being incompetent or in on it or a little of both. No matter what he is guilty of not doing his job properly and when you are a publicly traded company that is inexcusable. If he didn't "understand" what was going on with the books, he should have ordered an internal audit - he owed that to the people who were investing in his company.

SideTraKd · Joined: 19 Feb 2004 Posts: 6860 Location: Indianapolis

Coral wrote: SideTraKd wrote: Has anyone noticed that the Democrats who are always talking about how Bush is so cozy with corporate "cronies", and always bringing up Worldcom and Enron as failures of the Bush administration are suddenly silent on this issue now that people are getting sentenced to prison?

:think:

No I haven't noticed how Democrats have failed to believe that due process eventually puts scoundrels away. Democrats are big supporters of the judicial system and the Constitution powers of the courts.

And yet, without Bush's Justice Department, these criminals would never have even been prosecuted... But we are still supposed to believe he is in league with them?

You can't have it both ways... :roll:

Coral · Joined: 13 Apr 2004 Posts: 2791 Location: Hold 'em, Texas

SideTraKd wrote: Coral wrote: SideTraKd wrote: Has anyone noticed that the Democrats who are always talking about how Bush is so cozy with corporate "cronies", and always bringing up Worldcom and Enron as failures of the Bush administration are suddenly silent on this issue now that people are getting sentenced to prison?

:think:

No I haven't noticed how Democrats have failed to believe that due process eventually puts scoundrels away. Democrats are big supporters of the judicial system and the Constitution powers of the courts.

And yet, without Bush's Justice Department, these criminals would never have even been prosecuted... But we are still supposed to believe he is in league with them?

You can't have it both ways... :roll:

Bush's Justice department? You mean the justice system doesn't open in the morning until GW unlocks the doors?

SideTraKd · Joined: 19 Feb 2004 Posts: 6860 Location: Indianapolis

Coral wrote: SideTraKd wrote: Coral wrote: SideTraKd wrote: Has anyone noticed that the Democrats who are always talking about how Bush is so cozy with corporate "cronies", and always bringing up Worldcom and Enron as failures of the Bush administration are suddenly silent on this issue now that people are getting sentenced to prison?

:think:

No I haven't noticed how Democrats have failed to believe that due process eventually puts scoundrels away. Democrats are big supporters of the judicial system and the Constitution powers of the courts.

And yet, without Bush's Justice Department, these criminals would never have even been prosecuted... But we are still supposed to believe he is in league with them?

You can't have it both ways... :roll:

Bush's Justice department? You mean the justice system doesn't open in the morning until GW unlocks the doors?

Are you so ignorant as to not realize that the justice department is headed and run by Bush appointees?

:duh1:

Rave against the Machine · Joined: 26 Jun 2004 Posts: 532

Its a sad state of America that his conviction is hardly noticed by Americans compared to Martha Stewarts...what gives? :)

Coral · Joined: 13 Apr 2004 Posts: 2791 Location: Hold 'em, Texas

SideTraKd wrote: Coral wrote: SideTraKd wrote: Coral wrote: SideTraKd wrote: Has anyone noticed that the Democrats who are always talking about how Bush is so cozy with corporate "cronies", and always bringing up Worldcom and Enron as failures of the Bush administration are suddenly silent on this issue now that people are getting sentenced to prison?

:think:

No I haven't noticed how Democrats have failed to believe that due process eventually puts scoundrels away. Democrats are big supporters of the judicial system and the Constitution powers of the courts.

And yet, without Bush's Justice Department, these criminals would never have even been prosecuted... But we are still supposed to believe he is in league with them?

You can't have it both ways... :roll:

Bush's Justice department? You mean the justice system doesn't open in the morning until GW unlocks the doors?

Are you so ignorant as to not realize that the justice department is headed and run by Bush appointees?

:duh1:

The criminal justice system isn't operated by light switch. There are people who have mandates in the FBI. They don't simply sit around and wait for memos from appointees before investigating crimes.

SideTraKd · Joined: 19 Feb 2004 Posts: 6860 Location: Indianapolis

Coral wrote: SideTraKd wrote: Coral wrote: SideTraKd wrote: Coral wrote: SideTraKd wrote: Has anyone noticed that the Democrats who are always talking about how Bush is so cozy with corporate "cronies", and always bringing up Worldcom and Enron as failures of the Bush administration are suddenly silent on this issue now that people are getting sentenced to prison?

:think:

No I haven't noticed how Democrats have failed to believe that due process eventually puts scoundrels away. Democrats are big supporters of the judicial system and the Constitution powers of the courts.

And yet, without Bush's Justice Department, these criminals would never have even been prosecuted... But we are still supposed to believe he is in league with them?

You can't have it both ways... :roll:

Bush's Justice department? You mean the justice system doesn't open in the morning until GW unlocks the doors?

Are you so ignorant as to not realize that the justice department is headed and run by Bush appointees?

:duh1:

The criminal justice system isn't operated by light switch. There are people who have mandates in the FBI. They don't simply sit around and wait for memos from appointees before investigating crimes.

The decision whether or not to prosecute federal cases is 100% in the hands of Bush appointees, as is the case for any President during any term.

Now, either you are just too ignorant to know that fact, or you are just so polarized that you would rather ignore it and remain in denial in a lame attempt to keep your pathetic contradictual rhetoric from falling down around you like a house of cards...

:-D

Coral · Joined: 13 Apr 2004 Posts: 2791 Location: Hold 'em, Texas

SideTraKd wrote: Coral wrote: SideTraKd wrote: Coral wrote: SideTraKd wrote: Coral wrote: SideTraKd wrote: Has anyone noticed that the Democrats who are always talking about how Bush is so cozy with corporate "cronies", and always bringing up Worldcom and Enron as failures of the Bush administration are suddenly silent on this issue now that people are getting sentenced to prison?

:think:

No I haven't noticed how Democrats have failed to believe that due process eventually puts scoundrels away. Democrats are big supporters of the judicial system and the Constitution powers of the courts.

And yet, without Bush's Justice Department, these criminals would never have even been prosecuted... But we are still supposed to believe he is in league with them?

You can't have it both ways... :roll:

Bush's Justice department? You mean the justice system doesn't open in the morning until GW unlocks the doors?

Are you so ignorant as to not realize that the justice department is headed and run by Bush appointees?

:duh1:

The criminal justice system isn't operated by light switch. There are people who have mandates in the FBI. They don't simply sit around and wait for memos from appointees before investigating crimes.

The decision whether or not to prosecute federal cases is 100% in the hands of Bush appointees, as is the case for any President during any term.

Now, either you are just too ignorant to know that fact, or you are just so polarized that you would rather ignore it and remain in denial in a lame attempt to keep your pathetic contradictual rhetoric from falling down around you like a house of cards...

:-D

Do you think the Bush administration has a choice whether or not they actually operate a justice system? Here's a clue - if by law the attorney general is charged with enforcing federal law is it really necessary to parade him and Bush around like heroes for enforcing the law? And this time try answering without sounding like a 10-year old bonehead.

SideTraKd · Joined: 19 Feb 2004 Posts: 6860 Location: Indianapolis

Coral wrote: SideTraKd wrote: Coral wrote: SideTraKd wrote: Coral wrote: SideTraKd wrote: Coral wrote: SideTraKd wrote: Has anyone noticed that the Democrats who are always talking about how Bush is so cozy with corporate "cronies", and always bringing up Worldcom and Enron as failures of the Bush administration are suddenly silent on this issue now that people are getting sentenced to prison?

:think:

No I haven't noticed how Democrats have failed to believe that due process eventually puts scoundrels away. Democrats are big supporters of the judicial system and the Constitution powers of the courts.

And yet, without Bush's Justice Department, these criminals would never have even been prosecuted... But we are still supposed to believe he is in league with them?

You can't have it both ways... :roll:

Bush's Justice department? You mean the justice system doesn't open in the morning until GW unlocks the doors?

Are you so ignorant as to not realize that the justice department is headed and run by Bush appointees?

:duh1:

The criminal justice system isn't operated by light switch. There are people who have mandates in the FBI. They don't simply sit around and wait for memos from appointees before investigating crimes.

The decision whether or not to prosecute federal cases is 100% in the hands of Bush appointees, as is the case for any President during any term.

Now, either you are just too ignorant to know that fact, or you are just so polarized that you would rather ignore it and remain in denial in a lame attempt to keep your pathetic contradictual rhetoric from falling down around you like a house of cards...

:-D

Do you think the Bush administration has a choice whether or not they actually operate a justice system? Here's a clue - if by law the attorney general is charged with enforcing federal law is it really necessary to parade him and Bush around like heroes for enforcing the law? And this time try answering without sounding like a 10-year old bonehead.

Get over yourself... :roll:

I don't recall ever calling them heroes for enforcing the law. However, it sure does put a little rip in the fabric of all of those little liberal conspiracy theorists who love to say that there is Bush favoritism towards those involved with Enron and Worldcom when you can't help but notice that Bush and Ashcroft are the ones that sent these cases before their respective grand juries...

And people are going to prison over it.

Like I said... You cant have it both ways.

XiangYu · Joined: 03 Mar 2005 Posts: 3954 Location: US

Lagspike wrote: Ridiculous. This is obviously prejudice directed towards the rich.
Sadly, prejudice still exists...

I can't think of better people to be prejudiced towards than rich people. Rich people got rich usually not by working hard or gaining the respect of others. They got there by being aggressive, manipulative and being in the right place at the right time.

PoS · Joined: 11 Nov 2004 Posts: 2443 Location: Oceania

learn to swim wrote: Lagspike wrote: learn to swim wrote:
:lol: :lol: :lol: Again - Ignorance. I am a Director of sales. I travel almost every week and work out of the house when not traveling. My experience has paid me well and I enjoy the benifits of the freedom it has given me. I have a home office and pretty much unlimited freedom of time. But I wouldn't expect you to understand how that works because you are clueless.
:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
Sorry, but I'm the one laughing. Of course you're "Director of Sales". Of
course you travel every week. Yeah, that's probably why you're on this forum 24/7. You're so high up the corporate ladder, you don't need to worry about the "benefits" of spelling anymore.

I think there's a term for such highly respected people as you, with a lot of free time...let me think...hmm, what's a synonym for "single lonely 40-year-old with no life sitting around posting on forums who makes up identities to impress others?"
:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Email this thread to Endersshadow. I give you permission to see every single IP address I use. Pay particular attention to the Sprint PCS ones and the Hilton / Hampton Inn ones. :wink:

And I have posted my picture along with my wife on this forum with proof it was me by taking requests for what kind of picture is wanted. :lol:

I have nothing to hide from you kid. And you keep evading the question - what experience do you have? (except for a newspaper article?)

Ignorance is bordering stupidity at this point but keep going - maybe no one will notice. And the whole misspelling - Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh you got me. :roll:

Lagspike wrote: Back on topic:
learn to swim wrote:
I think I already covered that:

learn to swim wrote:
If he didn't know what was going on he is guilty of stupidity which is even worse because he should have stepped down due to incompetence. No way in hell he didn't know what was happening.

He was in charge of people's money - he needed to know what was going on - IT WAS HIS JOB.
Wrong! Both Ebbers and Sullivan stated that Ebbers left the accounting books to his underlings. Read the MSN Money article. If he didn't look at the books, how could he know the existence of fraud?

And, back to one of my original points:
Ebbers bought stock after the Sullivan cooked the books. If he knew about it, WHY WOULD HE BUY MILLIONS MORE OF STOCK?

Hmmm.. To cover up what was going down? To over inflate the stock? Because HE WAS STUPID?

Pick one - I don't care. But you cannot make the defense that it isn't his fault because he was stupid. I know this may be hard for your little full time student brain to comprehend but if you let him go because "he didn't know" then what is to stop all the rest from raping a company and saying "I didn't know"? It would be open season.

Do you realize what a CEO's job is? I keep asking but you fail to answer. He is in charge of millions of people's money and it is HIS JOB to know. If he doesn't it is negligence. I think he was half stupid and half in on it. You cannot (if you know anything about business) say he didn't know (at least suspect) something was happening. Reread your article. Stupidity doesn't get you off. It doesn't get doctors off, it doesn't get policemen off and it sure as hell doesn't get a CEO off. It was his job and if you had ANY clue about what you were talking about you would understand but you obviously don't.

Another "know it all " kid is :owned:

XiangYu · Joined: 03 Mar 2005 Posts: 3954 Location: US

I'd like to pose two questions to those of you who may have a better grasp of how economic forces work:

1) IF Ebbers and Sullivan tricked people into investing into World Com stocks, and at the end the stocks lost their value, then what happened to the people's money? Did it all just disappear or did it go somewhere else? When a stock loses its value is it similar to the dollar losing its value due to inflation?

2) Is the Federal Reserve supposedly independent from other government agencies? Can the Congress, or the President step in and ask it to raise rates or print more money in times of crises?

What I've been told is that in times of war, the Federal Reserve, whether under the direction of Congress and/or the President would print more money to finance the war effort. But by printing money, the government essentially dilutes the money supply, triggering inflation of prices, therefore people who are not closely associated with the government could see the buying power of their dollars diminish quite dramatically. Thus, in the case of inflation, the country's wealth did not just disappear, the money just gets concentrated on people who are closely associated with the Federal Govt (eg... Gov't contractors, banks that do business with the federal reserve. Please correct me if I'm wrong on any of these points.

Lagspike · Joined: 17 Feb 2005 Posts: 998

Danpt2000 wrote: I'd like to pose two questions to those of you who may have a better grasp of how economic forces work:

1) IF Ebbers and Sullivan tricked people into investing into World Com stocks, and at the end the stocks lost their value, then what happened to the people's money? Did it all just disappear or did it go somewhere else? When a stock loses its value is it similar to the dollar losing its value due to inflation?

Disappeared. The original value of the stock was the number of shares x the price. After the fraud was revealed, the number of shares remained the same, but the price dropped to $0.01.

Quote:
2) Is the Federal Reserve supposedly independent from other government agencies? Can the Congress, or the President step in and ask it to raise rates or print more money in times of crises?
Yes, the Fed is completely independent. No, Congress cannot intervene.

Quote:
What I've been told is that in times of war, the Federal Reserve, whether under the direction of Congress and/or the President would print more money to finance the war effort. But by printing money, the government essentially dilutes the money supply, triggering inflation of prices, therefore people who are not closely associated with the government could see the buying power of their dollars diminish quite dramatically. Thus, in the case of inflation, the country's wealth did not just disappear, the money just gets concentrated on people who are closely associated with the Federal Govt (eg... Gov't contractors, banks that do business with the federal reserve. Please correct me if I'm wrong on any of these points.

During high inflation, actual costs of living do not change, because wages rise with inflation. However, life savings are wiped out, and there is a huge disincentive to save; everyone spends the money as quick as they get it, spurring more inflation--that's called embedded inflation, when people think their money is going to be worth less in the near future.

No one actually gains from inflation--not even government associates. The only practical reason to print more money is because foreign debt is in dollars; if the Fed produced enough dollars, the debt could be payed off, even though the actual worth of the money is less than the loan itself.