The War We Refuse To Win

On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 01:00:47 GMT, in a place far, far away,
h (Rand Simberg) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:


Really? That must have been before Clinton ran for president then...
http://www.opensecrets.org/alerts/v6/enron_pres.asp

Isn't it interesting that that web site talks about the contributions
to the Bush inaugural, but fails to mention the hundred grand that
Enron gave to Clinton's 1993 inaugural?

Yup, that's an unbiased source.

I should also add that it omits all of the Enron money donated to the
DNC in the nineties...

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message ...
On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 01:00:47 GMT, in a place far, far away,
h (Rand Simberg) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Really? That must have been before Clinton ran for president then...
http://www.opensecrets.org/alerts/v6/enron_pres.asp

Isn't it interesting that that web site talks about the contributions
to the Bush inaugural, but fails to mention the hundred grand that
Enron gave to Clinton's 1993 inaugural?

Yup, that's an unbiased source.

I should also add that it omits all of the Enron money donated to the
DNC in the nineties...


So show me a source that lists all of Enron's contributions to Clin-
ton! I couldn't find one, otherwise I'd have posted it. Did they
really give more to Clinton than those three quarter million Bush re-
ceived? You claim they did. Do you have any numbers? Any source?
Or are you just spreading rumors you've heard?


I'm not ruling out that you're right; the fact of the matter is that
the whole system you have is rotten to the core, ever since you em-
braced the philosophy of "keeping government out of business" while
effectively letting business run government by having them decide
which candidates to make or break.

And now you have reached the point where the corruption can't be cov-
ered up any more and the donors and contractors have abused their pow-
er to the breaking point. Well, poor Bush! I guess he's like Tweed--
the one who got caught...



--
__ "A good leader knows when it's best to ignore the __
('__` screams for help and focus on the bigger picture." '__`)
//6(6; ©OOL mmiv :^)^\\
`\_-/ http://home.t-online.de/home/ulrich....lmann/redbaron \-_/'

On Thu, 8 Jul 2004 07:15:26 +0200, in a place far, far away, "Ool"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

Boy, "The War We Refuse To Win" has become "The Thread That Refuses To
Die."

So show me a source that lists all of Enron's contributions to Clin-
ton! I couldn't find one, otherwise I'd have posted it.

I don't have one handy, and I've no time to research it.

Did they
really give more to Clinton than those three quarter million Bush re-
ceived? You claim they did. Do you have any numbers? Any source?
Or are you just spreading rumors you've heard?

No, it is simply my understanding based on discussion on the web at
the time.

I'm not ruling out that you're right; the fact of the matter is that
the whole system you have is rotten to the core, ever since you em-
braced the philosophy of "keeping government out of business" while
effectively letting business run government by having them decide
which candidates to make or break.

And now you have reached the point where the corruption can't be cov-
ered up any more and the donors and contractors have abused their pow-
er to the breaking point. Well, poor Bush! I guess he's like Tweed--
the one who got caught...

In what way did he "get caught"? What did Bush have to do with Enron
and its collapse? According to your conspiracy theory, he should have
protected the company, but instead, that Nazi John Ashcroft is
prosecuting and convicting them.

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message ...

Really? And when, again, did "he get caught"?

ALL OVER THE LAST FEW MONTHS! PANTS DOWN *AND* ON FIRE, WEEK AFTER
WEEK AFTER WEEK! Haven't you been following the news?


I'm tired of all this; there's just one thing that would interest me:
In the two years between the Watergate scandal and Nixon's eventual
resignation-- Did he have such fervent apologists, too?

If there were discussions like this one in whatever passed for a use-
net back then they'd be an interesting read...



--
__ "A good leader knows when it's best to ignore the __
('__` screams for help and focus on the bigger picture." '__`)
//6(6; ©OOL mmiv :^)^\\
`\_-/ http://home.t-online.de/home/ulrich....lmann/redbaron \-_/'

On Thu, 8 Jul 2004 21:47:56 +0200, in a place far, far away, "Ool"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

Really? And when, again, did "he get caught"?

ALL OVER THE LAST FEW MONTHS! PANTS DOWN *AND* ON FIRE, WEEK AFTER
WEEK AFTER WEEK! Haven't you been following the news?

Apparently not the same "news" that you've been following. I'm still
waiting for some specifics as to just what horrible thing occurred for
which he has been shown to be culpable.

I'm tired of all this; there's just one thing that would interest me:
In the two years between the Watergate scandal and Nixon's eventual
resignation-- Did he have such fervent apologists, too?

Some, but not as many. Of course, unlike Bush, he was actually
guilty.

On 9 Jul 2004 16:46:22 -0700, in a place far, far away,
(ed kyle) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

(Rand Simberg) wrote in message .. .
On 24 May 2004 07:27:09 -0700, in a place far, far away,
(ed kyle) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

Although it won't make a difference (I live in Illinois,
which will go to Kerry), I've decided to vote for the
principled man - Nader.

I guess he's principled, if you like Marxist principles...


Hardly. A Marxist would not have helped create the Freedom
of Information Act. A Marxist wouldn't have helped save tens
of thousands of his fellow citizens lives by working for auto
safety, for safe drinking water, for pollution laws, for
creation of OSHA, the EPA, and the Consumer Product Safety
Administration.

No? Why not? How is that in opposition to Marxism?

Nader has consistently fought for *more* rights for citizens
(very un-Marxist) and for the protection of consumers against
corporate greed and carelessness.

That depends on what you mean by "rights." The former Soviet Union
was big on those in name, and it carefully defined them to actually be
rights of the state. Most of Nader's bilge is similar.

Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 01:00:47 GMT, in a place far, far away,
: h (Rand Simberg) made the phosphor on my
: monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:


: Really? That must have been before Clinton ran for president then...
: http://www.opensecrets.org/alerts/v6/enron_pres.asp
:
: Isn't it interesting that that web site talks about the contributions
: to the Bush inaugural, but fails to mention the hundred grand that
: Enron gave to Clinton's 1993 inaugural?
:
: Yup, that's an unbiased source.

: I should also add that it omits all of the Enron money donated to the
: DNC in the nineties...

Enron, unlike Martha Stewart, was smart to donate to both parties as it
appears to have helped them in their time of trouble.

Eric

h (Rand Simberg) wrote in message .. .
On 9 Jul 2004 16:46:22 -0700, in a place far, far away,
(ed kyle) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

(Rand Simberg) wrote in message .. .
On 24 May 2004 07:27:09 -0700, in a place far, far away,
(ed kyle) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

Although it won't make a difference (I live in Illinois,
which will go to Kerry), I've decided to vote for the
principled man - Nader.

I guess he's principled, if you like Marxist principles...


Hardly. A Marxist would not have helped create the Freedom
of Information Act. A Marxist wouldn't have helped save tens
of thousands of his fellow citizens lives by working for auto
safety, for safe drinking water, for pollution laws, for
creation of OSHA, the EPA, and the Consumer Product Safety
Administration.

No? Why not? How is that in opposition to Marxism?


It depends on which Marxism you are talking about. Perhaps not
in opposition to Marx and his original theories, but certainly
not in line with the practices of the five governments in today's
world that call themselves "Marxist": Laos, Vietnam, Cuba,
North Korea, and the People's Republic of China.

- Ed Kyle