Skip to comments.It's just about money (It's a little late for liberals to pretend they care about ethics)COULTER
Posted on 07/24/2002 3:27:34 PM PDT by TLBSHOW
It's just about money
Liberals' comprehension of corporate scandals is like the Woody Allen joke about what he knew about "War and Peace" after taking a speed-reading course and reading it in 20 minutes: "It involves Russia."
George Bush and Dick Cheney's involvement in corporate corruption consists primarily of the media's capacity to mention their names in the same sentence as "corporate corruption" 1 million times a day. Liberals think their capacity to say someone's name in an accusatory tone of voice is sufficient to impute criminality to Republicans. Since Republicans are intrinsically evil, merely mentioning their names suffices to make any point liberals want to make. Bush and Cheney have bought and sold stock. The swine!
Whenever the media start intoning darkly about "perceptions," "the full details," "unanswered questions," and most pathetic "the shadow of Enron" you should smell a big, fat commie rat (Gen. Buck Turgidson, "Dr. Strangelove").
In fact, there are no "unanswered questions" about Bush and Cheney. There are only insipid insinuations.
The facts are: Bush sold his stock in Harken to purchase the Texas Rangers. The price of the stock later went down. (And then it went up to more than what he sold it for.) Amid hectoring from liberals that he do so, Cheney sold his interest in Halliburton before becoming vice president to eliminate the possibility of a conflict of interest. Later, the price of that stock went down in large part due to trial lawyers filing asbestos suits against Halliburton.
It's not illegal to own or sell stock. It's illegal to sell stock based on insider information.
Thus, the Democrats' theory must be that Bush's purchase of the Texas Rangers and Cheney's ascension to the vice presidency were wily scams to conceal their real reason for selling assets: insider information! Of this, there is no evidence. Literally no evidence, in contradistinction to when liberals say there is "no evidence," meaning there hasn't been a conviction in a court of law, but there are boatloads of evidence.
The imputation of criminality to Bush and Cheney is so ludicrous that even in the girly-girly, eye-poking attacks on the New York Times op-ed page it has been roundly admitted that there is no question of "any criminality" (Frank Rich) and that "Mr. Bush broke no laws" (Nicholas Kristof). Rep. Barney Frank, the only honest Democrat, has repeatedly said that it is "not a case of Dick Cheney violating the law."
Thus, the media explain their baseless sneering about the president and vice president as attempts to "add to our knowledge of the ethics, policies and personnel of a secretive administration," as Rich put it.
It's a little late for liberals to pretend they care about ethics in the White House or anyplace else. These are the people who vehemently angrily defended a president who perjured himself, hid evidence, suborned perjury, was held in contempt by a federal court, was disbarred by the Supreme Court, lied to his party, his staff, his wife and the nation. The ethics of that president included having staff perform oral sex on him in the Oval Office as he chatted on the phone with a congressman about sending American troops into battle.
The secular saints of liberalism indignantly defended all this on the grounds that it's fine to lie and commit crimes if it's "just about sex." Evidently some corporate officials took that lesson to heart and concluded that it's also fine to commit crimes if it's "just about money."
Just as Ronald Reagan gave American culture a renewed patriotism and self-confidence that outlasted his presidency, Clinton has bequeathed America a culture of criminality and rationalization by the powerful.
But still somehow, Republicans are said to be more vulnerable whenever a businessman becomes a crook on the basis of their general support of capitalism. But if criminality and not capitalism is to blame, then Democrats are to blame for their general support of crooks.
As part of the left's long-standing fanatical defense of their favorite criminal, Bill Clinton, it will be screeched that conservatives want to blame everything on Clinton, including the wacky idea that a direct assault on honor and honesty led some people to behave dishonorably and dishonestly.
Not everything. But some of us called this ball and this pocket years ago:
"If Congress doesn't have the will to throw him out, Clinton will have set a new standard for the entire country. The new standard will be a total absence of standards. ... If you get caught and don't have a good enough legal team to escape, you might have to pay a fine or go to prison. But there's no shame in it. The country doesn't really condemn this. We adore a lovable rogue. ... (I)t is fine to lie and cheat and manipulate because honor is just a word, just hot air and the country doesn't believe in it." ("High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case Against Bill Clinton," 1998.)
It took a bear market to inexorably repeal the Clintonian national motto of "Just Do It!"
Beautiful, and bang on target.
One might add, under every rock investigators turn over investigating corporate scandals, there's bubba, arranging sweetheart deals with India that go belly up, having Robert Rubin provide Enron secret loans to cover their losses, et cetera et cetera et cetera, all the evidence points to clintonian corruption, the SEC and Justice Department were completely out to lunch for a decade, yet every talking head on tv connects President Bush and Vice Presidnet Cheney to corporate scandals that are wholly lacking in substance.
Deliver us, Lord, from liberals!
First off, you have violated the Ann Coulter rule, no pix.8-)
And Barney Fwank wouldn't know the truth if it smacked him in his empty head. But he's playing it smart because he knows nothing is there.
Therein lies the entire Democrat argument against the President and Vice-President. If that is the case, we are ALL swine, Democrats included!
My guess is that what made it into the Star report was just the tip of the...ah...iceberg. What did it cost to keep the rest of the things we didn't hear about secret? With all of the electronic surveillance and Clinton's inability to keep it in his pants or off the phone, what did he give away to keep the rest of it quiet? And, if it was just about sex and sex is no big deal, explain the indimidation of witnesses.
I know, I know, it's not what you know, it's what you can prove. Which is exactly my point.
Ann Coulter IN PEOPLE MAGAZINE THIS WEEK AS MS. RIGHT (INCLUDES PHOTOS)
PEOPLE MAGAZINE | 7/29/2002 | LYNDA WRIGHT
Posted on 07/22/2002 2:01 PM Pacific by TLBSHOW
From:Ann Coulter, it's time to meet the truth police
Chicago Sun-Times | July 22, 2002 | RICHARD ROEPER SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST
Posted on 07/22/2002 11:48 AM Pacific by Chi-townChief
-- snip --
First off, you have violated the Ann Coulter rule, no pix.8-)See also, from:
Ann Coulter to be on Donahue tonight
Posted on 07/18/2002 2:01 PM Pacific by my_pointy_head_is_sharp
Ann cleaned Dono-who's clock. She put him in his place. She.. you get the drift. ;-) She did a great job, and made us proud. Here's some screen captures, courtesy (and special thanks to)hole_n_one
Be Seeing You,
Clinton still had an approval rating of 57 percent. Bill Clinton is not the problem and never was. Clinton is just the obvious symptom of the problem. Some business leaders are another.
If they did not, Clinton could not have maintained a 57 percent aproval rating all during his last years in office. This scandal only proves that some wall street people share Clinton's morals as well. They are not alone. Over half the population shares Clinton's moral beliefs. The media does not understand that.
The Democrats expect the public to buy the charge that Bush and Cheney engaged in insider trading. They public will buy those charges. The polls show 43 percent of the population thinks the charges are true as of now. What that means is that 43 percent of the population would have engaged in insider trading, if they had been in Bush or Cheney's shoes. They can't even imagine them not doing it.
The Democrats will be shocked to find that even when over 40 percent believe the phoney charge, the Bush approval ratings will barely go down. The public does not condem people for doing what they would do themselves. The 40 some percent of the population that believes the charges may be more inclined to think less of Bush if he did not use his position to engage in insider trading.
That is the legacy of the 60's generation.... a generation that invented if it feels good do it ... it is good for you do it. When moral and immoral became relative views that are up to the individual, there are no morals. We could not convict Clinton in the public arena on real charges The Democrats will not convict Bush with the public on phoney charges.
Clinton is an example of our decline in morality. We will have to fix ourselves, before we can hope to fix businessmen or politicians.
Whenever the media start intoning darkly about "perceptions," "the full details," "unanswered questions," and most pathetic "the shadow of Enron" you should smell a big, fat commie rat (Gen. Buck Turgidson, "Dr. Strangelove").From http://www.corky.net/scripts/drStrangelove.html:
-- snip --
Cut to: int. War Room
to phone No. No, Dimitri, there must be some mistake. No, I'm certain of that. I'm perfectly certain of that, Dimitri. Just a second. puts down phone You know what he says? He says that one of the planes hasn't turned back. He says according to information forwarded by our air staff, it's headed for the missile complex at Lapuda.
Whah... Laughs in wheezing incredulity That's impossible, Mr. President. I mean, look at the big board! Thirty-four planes, thirty recalls acknowledged, and four splashes, and one of them was targeted for Lapuda!
to phone Dimitri? Look, we've got an acknowledgement from every plane except the four you've shot down. Oh. Oh. He says... Hang on a second, Dimitri. covers phone He says their air staff now only claims three aircraft confirmed. The fourth may only be damaged.
Mr. President, I'm beginning to smell a big fat commie rat. I mean, supposing Kissov is lying about that fourth plane, just looking for an excuse to clobber us. I mean, if the spaghetti hits the fan, now we're really in trouble...
Link posted for your reuse >> >> >>http://users.wi.net/~johnh/ann_coulter.jpg << << <<
|Problem is, the limousine libs lost some bucks in the stock market.|
Of course, this means they can't make the payments on the Volvos, send their kids to Stanford (Gee!!! Just like Chelsea!!!), send fifty bucks to PBS and get a cheesy-ass canvas bag and most of all, feel like they've done something "good" without getting their hands dirty or actually associating with the people they allegedly champion.
They're incredibly stupid and naive and have no concept how the market (and capitalism) works.
Without this mindset, Phil Donahue, Oprah and "The View" wouldn't exist.
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.