Skip to comments.
Bush Served on Harken Board During Enron Trades
Yahoo ^
| 10/22/02
Posted on 10/23/2002 4:03:22 PM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-79 next last
To: Tumbleweed_Connection
Gee, I wonder why I saw this posted on DU this morning? More smear tactics by the left, right before an election.
To: stalin
He's collected more soft money bribes than any president in history. What do you think he's doing for that money Here is the inside scoop. Most big shots give the big bucks out to keep liberals from destroying them. As an example, Bill Gates was a stingy contributer. Even though he was liberal, he gave so little that Bubba told Reno to squeeze him a little. It became an all-out war in the end.
Some big shots give it all to the the liberals and even pay them lip service just to leave them alone. Some look for favors. Some give to the opposing party, the GOP, to defend them. And some give to both sides equally. Have you ever noticed that? Giving to both sides equally?
Bush's contributions were largely a result of people getting completely fed up with the Terrorist Pardoner in Chief.
To: stalin
It's a good thing Bush isn't a democrat.
What you mean? Hell a lot of those on this forum claim he is a democrat.... They claim he one and the same, you can't tell the difference......
23
posted on
10/23/2002 5:59:14 PM PDT
by
deport
To: stalin
They would be "crying wag the dog" about Iraq and be very against the war effort.If Bush doesn't consult with his joint chiefs and blows up an aspirin factory, you might have a point there.
They would be "investigating" him about the financial scandals and when they found nothing they would investigate his freids , his gradschool teachers and his dog until they could came up with somthing that they could hang onto ...
Did the GOP do that to Carter? No. Did the GOP do that to JFK? No. Did the GOP do that to Johnson? No. Did the Rats do that to Nixon? Yes. Did the Rats do that to Reagan? Yes.
You got your parties switched around in your mind. Funny how a certain mind set gets things backwards. Mental dyslexia.
To: stalin
If Bush did all of those things people on this board would refuse to believe it ; no a matter what the evidence.I guess you didn't see the Iran-Contra threads here. Before your time, I suppose.
To: deport
Stalin shot his officers when Hitler invaded. A very paranoid man. He thought the claims of an invasion were a conspiracy, if I'm not mistaken. I suppose that this is what we should expect. LOL. Good night.
To: Tumbleweed_Connection
Having signed 10 K's (Q's), 8 K's, 146's etc. I'm trying to find some 'there' there.
I guess 20 years of accounting experience just doesn't allow me too 'connect the dots'.
Oh, well, what do I know?
5.56mm
27
posted on
10/23/2002 6:12:23 PM PDT
by
M Kehoe
To: M Kehoe
too=to
T'was the keyboard I tell ya.
5.56mm
28
posted on
10/23/2002 6:17:47 PM PDT
by
M Kehoe
To: stalin
He's collected more soft money bribes than any president in history. What do you think he's doing for that money ?
Oh, I see. When a conservative accepts soft money, it's a bribe. When a liberal accepts soft money, it's constituent service.
Hypocrisy is a dish best served cold, you know.
Now then, one man's bribe is another man's campaign contribution.
Where you stand, of course, depends upon where you sit. Be advised, however, that most of Bush's money was hard money. Democrats just don't have the hard money network that we do, so they go straight to the sewer money in trade for favors to be paid back at a later date.
Now please go back and try again. I know things have been getting boring over at DemocraticUnderground....
...what, with the ban on dissent that's going on over there and all, but you don't have to come over here and take it out on us. However, if you butch up your action, you might just be able to run with us big dogs.
Be Seeing You,
Chris
29
posted on
10/23/2002 6:23:01 PM PDT
by
section9
Comment #30 Removed by Moderator
To: Billthedrill
This from the media that failed to report, and then follow up with questions, that Clinton served as Arkansas Attorney General while aledgedly committing rape.
31
posted on
10/23/2002 6:29:13 PM PDT
by
KC Burke
To: stalin
It must be rough to be you.
Hang in there. You only have six more years of Bush to trash.
5.56mm
32
posted on
10/23/2002 6:32:06 PM PDT
by
M Kehoe
To: Tumbleweed_Connection
Ok, so Harken (an engergy company) traded with Enron (another energy company) SO WHAT!!!! Isn't it safe to assume engergy companies trade with another?? I fail to see the scandal here. Oh wait, I fogot, there doesn't have to be one. Democrats make them up.
33
posted on
10/23/2002 6:41:20 PM PDT
by
Kath
To: stalin
He's collected more soft money bribes than any president in history. Oh, you mean like when Clinton took soft money from Enron and then set up deals for him in India?
34
posted on
10/23/2002 6:46:25 PM PDT
by
TC Rider
To: stalin
I didn't think anyone was actually this stupid....
Live and learn....
To: Tumbleweed_Connection
High-level members of the Bush administration said Lay called asking for help while he fought to keep Enron out of bankruptcy, but they said they did nothing and that the president knew nothing about it. Sounds like Schultz from Hogan's Heroes. They knew nothing, nothing. BTW thanks for the millions in contributions from you and your friends, Kenny Boy.
Why the secrecy regarding administration meetings with oil interests? Reminds me of Hillary and health care.
To: Arthur Wildfire! March
Almost all give to both sides although most give to one side more than the other. Bribers tend to hedge their bets but they certainly expect somthing for their money.
37
posted on
10/23/2002 7:47:46 PM PDT
by
stalin
To: stalin
Put up or shut up. What has Bush done that was improper in exchange for money? Surely you know and aren't just mouthing off, right?
To: spycatcher
Yes. Up until about a year ago, you couldn't be in most energy markets and not trade with Enron. In many cases it was the market.
To: deport
It's true that there is very very little difference particularely when it comes to foriegn policy. If it's a democrat the republicans opose his policy if it's a republican the democrats opose his policy but the policy itself is vitually identicle.
If Bush was in office durring Kosovo , Bosnia and trying to kill Bin Laden after the embasy bombings republicans would have suported military action unflinchingly. Because it was Clinton they oposed it. If Clinton were in the white house right now you'ld see many of the Republicans on this site and in Congress that suport military action now whinning "wag the dog" , like when Clinton tried to kill Bin Laden , and far fewer Democrats would be oposing it.
40
posted on
10/23/2002 7:57:45 PM PDT
by
stalin
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-79 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson