George Dubya Enron

“What bothers me is the utter arrogance, smugness and total disregard of other people's lives that these motherless f_cks exhibit. There is still a different standard to the level of criminality these people perpetuate than that of your average violent criminal that gets nailed in today's society. However, they are both capable of ruining people's lives and do so. Whereas I read the text of what these scumbuckets said, complete with a total disregard for anything decent, and feel that perhaps a foot long corkscrew is in order for these people (for those that want the gory details, you start at one temple and slowly turn it until you hit the other), they are prosectued on a different level and their sentences are likely to be carried out in comparitively plush surroundings. How many times have you heard people complain about cable TV being put in prisons? I have and believe me, i am not advocatiing that. How much do you want to be that these minimum security places that houses these worthless, white-collar hoopleheads are equipped just as well, probably better? Fitting for these scum, but critisize the others? Double standard! Take your lumps and suffer more severely. Not to go away for a shorter amount of time, just to get out and be able to retrieve whatever money you managed to secure for yourself in some foreign bank! Rant over!”

“Come on Treebeard, be a sport!

Greed Is Good”

“Whatsamatter, you don't like the corkscrew idea?”

“You could use one of those ice drills that ice-fishing nuts use.


The corkscrew is fine, though.”

“Keelhauling was always effective... Just make sure you have a boat that's been in the water long enough to grow a handsome collection of barnacles.”

“Bison - Did you bother to read the article I linked to? Did you notice this part?:

FERC approved a flexible rate cap of $150 per megawatt hour that allows suppliers to charge more if they can prove a higher price is warranted.


Surely you can link to at least one source that supports your delusion?”

“Enron sucks. The opportunistic companies taking advantage of the botched deregulation in CA, suck. The cause of the California energy crisis was not based solely on the Enrons though. California hadn't been building power plants to keep up with demand. Coupled with not enough peak energy to meet demand, a drought year, hot weather, economic growth and Silicon Valley dot commers exploding on the scene, existing plants operating at full capacity (you can't rely on that full-time 24/7/365 without shutdowns), and a badly handled deregulation handoff, it created chaos. When there is chaos in a market, opportunistic companies come in and take advantage of it. Since then California has added more domestic power sources but we still need more to keep up with our growth. You can't easily manipulate a resource if there's lots of it... if it's scarce, watch out. The whole episode was a lot of things coming together at once, none of them good. We should have plenty of energy to cover all these variables without creating a crisis.”

“And I wouldn't need to constantly worry about why liberals think the dumb thoughts they do if you understood the difference between a flexible rate cap (which really doesn't do anything but suggest that you might want to charge less) and a firm price cap (which sets a cap on the price.) FERC under Clinton did not install a price cap, and your article doesn't say that it did, as a matter of fact it states that Davis was still lobbying for a price cap.”

“Imagine: A democrat were being flown around during his election campaign by a, say, housing company that later was proven to have defrauded the state of, say, Texas for billions of dollars...


They would bring Ken Star out of retirement!”

“Imagine Democrats against the Iraq war siding with the United Nations, who were actually bilking billions of dollars and profiting from Saddam being in power in the first place. Hmmm. And think about "Mr. Fuel-Effecient Anti-Big-Oil" Kerry flying his personal hair cutter in on an oil-sucking private jet for a mere trim. Hmmm. As you were saying... WHERE'S KEN STAR!”

“Imagine Democrats against the Iraq war siding with the United Nations, who were actually bilking billions of dollars and profiting from Saddam being in power in the first place.

Do you have a source for this?”

“Imagine the war on Iraq was based on a lie.”

“Imagine a bunch of nuts went around lying to you by stating that something was based on a lie when it wasn't.”

“Imagine feeling morally justified in repeating "not technically a lie" over and over for an obviously intentional distortion costing thousands of lives.”

“BTW while we're on the topic of corporate influence - I bet the liberals can't guess which candidate gets the most donations from high income donors and which candidate gets the most donations from low income donors. Come on take a guess guys.”

“Phaedrus, what are you asking a source for... that there are Democrats against the war who preferred the United Nations policy of approaching Iraq, or are you asking for a source that the United Nations bilked billions from the Oil For Food program? I thought both were common knowledge?”

“"obviously intentional distortion"

I can find no evidence of this either, other than the speculation of some liberals. Just because you think someone was misleading you, because apparently you have a magical gift that lets somehow see into their minds and know what their motivations are,isn't evidence that they were.”

“Childish name-calling is not really a substitute for facts and sources. I showed you that FERC did impose a cap prior to Bush coming into office, contrary to what you blustered.

I fully agree that California’s deregulation was a bad idea. Letting lobbyists effectively write the law was an invitation for disaster. Wasn’t that done under a Republican governor?”

“Any guesses on the donors? come on guys, who's in the hip pocket of this nations wealthiest people? You know who it is, you can say it.”

“I think Buddha Bear did a pretty good job debunking that one weeks ago Bison.

What do you call it when someone repeats something that has been shown to be a distortion?”

“What do you call it when someone repeats something that has been shown to be a distortion?


A Violin?”

“Violin, come on, as for repeating the same 'ole same 'ole everyday, you're a broken string!”

“Buck, I was looking for a source for the UN oil for food fraud. I'd like to see what you're reading on the subject, if you don't mind.

Bison, I think the distortions have been made pretty plain. Violin even posted a link to a database that listed the statements of the administration in relation to the facts as they were then known.”

“Debunking on the donors? There's nothing to debunk the facts are pretty clear. All you gotta do is add up the numbers Violin. Unless your still practicing "fuzzy" math.”

“If fuzzy math counts 527 organizations as the sum of the individual donors, We're all practicing fuzzy math.”

“I read/watch the mainstream news sources on the Oil For Food scandal. It's not the headlines that it should be (no surprise there!) but you should see blurbs on it every couple days or so. Even today if you go to Foxnews.com there is a blurb on it, this time suggesting the U.S. is wanting to delay the investigation while Iraq gets it's act together so as to not embarrass the United Nations too much. I say turn on the lights at the United Nations and watch the cockroaches scurry for cover. That place is grossly corrupt.”

“"Violin even posted a link to a database that listed the statements of the administration in relation to the facts as they were then known."

Oh you mean somebody "cherry picked" a bunch of facts to put into a database in order to show that there wasn't a threat!

A ha ha ha ha ha

I'm rolling around on the floor laughing my ass of right now, I can't believe how hard it is to type like this.”

“"527 organizations as the sum of the individual donors"

We're talking just straight campaign contributions.”

“No, the database is a list of quotes taken in context from the Bush administration about Iraq before the war. I don't have the URL, but I'm sure he'd happy to re post it for you.”

“Prepared at the direction of Rep. Henry A. Waxman, the Iraq on the Record Database is a searchable collection of 237 specific misleading statements about the threat posed by Iraq made by the five Administration officials most responsible for providing public information and shaping public opinion on Iraq: President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Powell, and National Security Advisor Rice.”

“"Prepared at the direction of Rep. Henry A. Waxman"

I'll take a look at it, but that's about all I need to know about the level of BS this represents.”

“Why? Can you cite one lie by Waxman, let alone 237?”

“Two Hundred Thirty-Seven? You could almost call that a stockpile of noxious allegations.”

“And aside from the person who asked it be compiled - it's a series of quotes. If they're misquoted or taken out of context, that's one thing, but in this case, they're not. When there are this many quotes that are misleading, one has to believe it was intentional.”

“A 'pattern of deception,' so to speak.”

“You guys still scratchin' this thing?”

“Henry Waxman referring to Saddam Hussein:

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."

October 2002

read again "his chemical and biological weapons," not "any possible stocks of," not "he may have."

Rep. Henry Waxman....Liar (of course only in the sense that some including himself call Bush a liar)... I prefer to say Rep. Henry Waxman....hypocrite.”

“From Waxman's list statement number one:

"I strongly believe he was trying to reconstitute his nuclear weapons program."

Not a lie... the explanation for this statement being misleading is absolutely ludicrous to any thinking person, the database explains that there was deep division in the intelligence community as to Saddam's nuclear capability. Well numbskulls if there's deep division there are going to be a myriad of opinions. This statement would be misleading if there was NO deep division but rather a consensus that Saddam was not reconstituting his nuclear program.”

“number 2:

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

This statement is true, the fact presented here is not that Saddam had sought quantities of uranium, the fact presented is that the British government had learned of this. In this case the explanation conveniently leaves out the fact that while the CIA and State dept. were "dubious" of the claim, while failing to note that the CIA had not come to any conclusion on the claim, or to note that the CIA was dubious not because they thought there was something inherently wrong with the intelligence, but because British intelligence had not decided whether to fully reveal the source of the information. We had our own source which the CIA was "dubious" of, the Brits had other sources. At worst Bush conveyed something that the British felt sure about at the time.”

“You could take each staement and defend it individually, I'm sure. The fact of the matter is that they all add up to a great big attempt to persuade the American people that there was a danger from Iraq that was indisputable, certain, growing and compelling.

That was not the case, and an objective look at the facts of intelligence we had available told us that. The Bush administration chose to overlook and downplay every bit of contradictory evidence as they made the case for war. THAT is why these statements and half-truths matter.”

“Can't wait to see the next 235 posts.”

“Phaedrus, when you think about the fact that these people all make speeches all the time, 237 quotes from all of them together isn't a whole hell of a lot, it appears that alot of them are the same quote, just repeated because they were used again in when a speech was given multiple times or a they were answering the same question multiple times.”

“So you're saying that the Bush administration didn't try to sell the war on the idea that Iraq was a danger to the US, or that he was in collusion with Al-qaeda?”

“No, we are saying the Bush administration DID sell the war on those ideas.”

“And, somehow, this is not considered misleading the American public?”

“Personally, I feel Iraq was a threat. You might be hunky dory and sweet and comfy with a guy like Saddam running a country, but I wasn't. And Saddam did support terrorism. He regularlarlarlarlarSTOPlarly supported the Palestian terrorists with reward cashola for suicide bombers. Also, if the wind was just right, I could smell his poop from here.”

“Kaddhafi's poop smells okay, though?”

“After Bush invaded Iraq, Khaddafi took an enema. He smelled the future.

The earth may stop again, but someone needs to hang for the WMD fiasco.”

“Things are getting wierd. knock it off.”

“More Enron Tapes, More Gloating


Highlights:

"You gotta think the economy is going to f------g get crushed, man. This is like a recession waiting to f-----g happen."

"This is where California breaks."

"Yeah, it sure does man,"

"What we need to do is to help in the cause of, ah, downfall of California. You guys need to pull your megawatts out of California on a daily basis."

"They're on the ropes today. I exported like a f------g 400 megs."

"Wow, f--k 'em, right!"”