Ken Lay Compared to Jesus!

[OrByte]

I wonder if his coffin will be bulletproof?

he could afford it ya know!

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: LunarRay



When you equate money on the same level as a human life lost well then I can't begin to dialog beyond what I have. You name many who are mad but alive... I know of many dead in say Iraq and yet we support the folks who perpetrated that fiasco.. Just seems folks see money as the means to be alive and I see alive as the means to acquire money..

Again, who is this "we"? I certainly do not equate the 2, and our dialogue suffers from misunderstanding on both our parts, evidently. I also certainly do not support the present admin on many issues, Iraq among them.

Originally posted by: Harvey
The only thing I find odd is how you equate Ken Lay's blatant criminal behavior as an individual, and in concert with his co-conspirators, with anything in Iraq. Lay stole millions and drove many into poverty for the rest of their lives. When it comes to comparing lost money to lost lives, considering the amount of damage he did to so many, I find it difficult to make much distinction in the level of criminality between the two beyond the actual life - death distinction, itself.

Well stated.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: LunarRay
.. but my point is that it is quite um.... odd to castigate Lay and wish him eternity in hell as it is to terminate a multitude in Iraq and call it "In the name of human rights". We care about some stuff but not other stuff.. and to me that is .... odd.

The only thing I find odd is how you equate Ken Lay's blatant criminal behavior as an individual, and in concert with his co-conspirators, with anything in Iraq. Lay stole millions and drove many into poverty for the rest of their lives. When it comes to comparing lost money to lost lives, considering the amount of damage he did to so many, I find it difficult to make much distinction in the level of criminality between the two beyond the actual life - death distinction, itself.

Harvey, while you make some valid points, please back up your assertion that he drove many into poverty for the rest of their lives. I can tell you from experience that many, many ex-Enron Corporate employees here in Houston were able to land other jobs. Not as well paying, I'm sure, but good enough that they're nowhere nears poverty.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: CPA
Harvey, while you make some valid points, please back up your assertion that he drove many into poverty for the rest of their lives. I can tell you from experience that many, many ex-Enron Corporate employees here in Houston were able to land other jobs. Not as well paying, I'm sure, but good enough that they're nowhere nears poverty.

Start with all those Enron employees who were near retirement age whose entire savings were locked in the Enron 401K. By "locked," I mean they sold on this by Lay and his cronies, who were selling off their own stock at the same time they kept telling the employees their funds were safe and growing, and they were literally barred from pulling their own money out, even if they wanted to. Here's one source.

.
.
Bankruptcy

As Enron?s corporate house of cards collapsed anyway in fall 2001, the toll was devastating. Investors lost tens of billions of dollars; some retirees were financially wiped out; 5,000 Enron employees were laid off. Enron?s accounting tricks also discredited its accounting firm, Arthur Andersen LLP, which was soon closed by government regulators.
.
.
Energy Crisis

The California energy crisis also was spinning out of control. Rolling blackouts crisscrossed the state, where the partially deregulated energy market, served by Enron and other traders, had seen electricity prices soar 800 percent in one year.
.
.
But California?s suspicions mostly were mocked in official Washington as examples of finger-pointing and conspiracy theories. The administration blamed the problem on excessive environmental regulation that discouraged the building of new power plants.

Again, Lay was influencing policy behind the scenes. An April 2001 memo from Lay to Cheney advised the administration to resist price caps.

?The administration should reject any attempt to re-regulate wholesale power markets by adopting price caps or returning to archaic methods of determining the cost-base of wholesale power,? Lay said. [San Francisco Chronicle, Jan. 30, 2002]

There's a lot more worth reading in that article about how Lay funded the Bushies and what they got in return from intentional neglect by the Feds, but that's another subject.

The most damning issue is that this wasn't an accidental collapse due to simple mistakes or ineptitude. Lay and his gang of thugs were pimping the face value of the company to the sky and locking up their employees' funds while sucking it dry through their bogus shell corporations. This was intentional, and it ruined lives.

I'm only sorry Lay won't be around to rot in a cell. :|

 

[conehead433]

When Ken Lay rises from the dead I'll believe it.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: LunarRay
.. but my point is that it is quite um.... odd to castigate Lay and wish him eternity in hell as it is to terminate a multitude in Iraq and call it "In the name of human rights". We care about some stuff but not other stuff.. and to me that is .... odd.

The only thing I find odd is how you equate Ken Lay's blatant criminal behavior as an individual, and in concert with his co-conspirators, with anything in Iraq. Lay stole millions and drove many into poverty for the rest of their lives. When it comes to comparing lost money to lost lives, considering the amount of damage he did to so many, I find it difficult to make much distinction in the level of criminality between the two beyond the actual life - death distinction, itself.

I simply drew a parallel betwix folks who hate the Lays of the world who perpetrated (assumed true) acts that resulted in monetary loss against the same folks who have no such feelings of hate toward the XXXs of the world who perpetrate death upon thousands.
It seems odd to me..

(And To Dealer, yes it is a topic for another thread except in the sense that hate for monetary loss and not for lives lost baffles me.. )

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER

Originally posted by: LunarRay



When you equate money on the same level as a human life lost well then I can't begin to dialog beyond what I have. You name many who are mad but alive... I know of many dead in say Iraq and yet we support the folks who perpetrated that fiasco.. Just seems folks see money as the means to be alive and I see alive as the means to acquire money..

Again, who is this "we"? I certainly do not equate the 2, and our dialogue suffers from misunderstanding on both our parts, evidently. I also certainly do not support the present admin on many issues, Iraq among them.

Originally posted by: Harvey
The only thing I find odd is how you equate Ken Lay's blatant criminal behavior as an individual, and in concert with his co-conspirators, with anything in Iraq. Lay stole millions and drove many into poverty for the rest of their lives. When it comes to comparing lost money to lost lives, considering the amount of damage he did to so many, I find it difficult to make much distinction in the level of criminality between the two beyond the actual life - death distinction, itself.

Well stated.

The 'we' are the folks who so think.. it is a means of stating something with out directly pointing at some one in particular ... a kinder gentle way of speaking, it seems to me.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: CPA
Harvey, while you make some valid points, please back up your assertion that he drove many into poverty for the rest of their lives. I can tell you from experience that many, many ex-Enron Corporate employees here in Houston were able to land other jobs. Not as well paying, I'm sure, but good enough that they're nowhere nears poverty.

Start with all those Enron employees who were near retirement age whose entire savings were locked in the Enron 401K. By "locked," I mean they sold on this by Lay and his cronies, who were selling off their own stock at the same time they kept telling the employees their funds were safe and growing, and they were literally barred from pulling their own money out, even if they wanted to. Here's one source.

.
.
Bankruptcy

As Enron?s corporate house of cards collapsed anyway in fall 2001, the toll was devastating. Investors lost tens of billions of dollars; some retirees were financially wiped out; 5,000 Enron employees were laid off. Enron?s accounting tricks also discredited its accounting firm, Arthur Andersen LLP, which was soon closed by government regulators.
.
.
Energy Crisis

The California energy crisis also was spinning out of control. Rolling blackouts crisscrossed the state, where the partially deregulated energy market, served by Enron and other traders, had seen electricity prices soar 800 percent in one year.
.
.
But California?s suspicions mostly were mocked in official Washington as examples of finger-pointing and conspiracy theories. The administration blamed the problem on excessive environmental regulation that discouraged the building of new power plants.

Again, Lay was influencing policy behind the scenes. An April 2001 memo from Lay to Cheney advised the administration to resist price caps.

?The administration should reject any attempt to re-regulate wholesale power markets by adopting price caps or returning to archaic methods of determining the cost-base of wholesale power,? Lay said. [San Francisco Chronicle, Jan. 30, 2002]

There's a lot more worth reading in that article about how Lay funded the Bushies and what they got in return from intentional neglect by the Feds, but that's another subject.

The most damning issue is that this wasn't an accidental collapse due to simple mistakes or ineptitude. Lay and his gang of thugs were pimping the face value of the company to the sky and locking up their employees' funds while sucking it dry through their bogus shell corporations. This was intentional, and it ruined lives.

I'm only sorry Lay won't be around to rot in a cell. :|

On the issue present above I strongly feel that Lay - who lost more than any one person - was not in operational control of Enron. I have sat in board meetings and listened to the dialog issued back and forth. It is directional stuff not operational. Shilling was really the one who your hate should be directed toward. Well Shilling and the Fastows and Coppers and the rest of the 'off shore' crew. Include AA in that fiasco too but Lay... sorry I just can't agree on the salient point of this debate.
The finders of fact agreed that Lay conspired and they had the evidence so from that POV I have to defer to their wisdom but just what is it or rather how is it he conspired... telling shareholders all is rosey or along those lines.. ? I just don't see Lay as being hands on like Shilling in the dealings..

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
I simply drew a parallel betwix folks who hate the Lays of the world who perpetrated (assumed true) acts that resulted in monetary loss against the same folks who have no such feelings of hate toward the XXXs of the world who perpetrate death upon thousands.
It seems odd to me..

Assumed true??? How much truer do you need it to be beyond the fact that Lay and Skilling were CONVICTED in a court of law before you consider it more than an assumption? < shakes head > :roll:

When you're through figuring that out, why does the distinction even matter? Evil is evil. Lay, Skilling and their cronies intentionally wrecked the lives of thousands of people and raped millions of their customers in California and elsewhere. Do you want to wait until any of their victims dies as a direct result of not being able to afford to heat or find shelter before you'd find them as guilty?

The only thing I find odd is that you find it odd.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: LunarRay
I simply drew a parallel betwix folks who hate the Lays of the world who perpetrated (assumed true) acts that resulted in monetary loss against the same folks who have no such feelings of hate toward the XXXs of the world who perpetrate death upon thousands.
It seems odd to me..

Assumed true??? How much truer do you need it to be beyond the fact that Lay and Skilling were CONVICTED in a court of law before you consider it more than an assumption? < shakes head > :roll:

When you're through figuring that out, why does the distinction even matter? Evil is evil. Lay, Skilling and their cronies intentionally wrecked the lives of thousands of people and raped millions of their customers in California and elsewhere. Do you want to wait until any of their victims dies as a direct result of not being able to afford to heat or find shelter before you'd find them as guilty?

The only thing I find odd is that you find it odd.

Yes.. I responed above that I defer to the finders of fact.. but could not agree with the mal res they assigned to his 'speeches'.

I said a few times that I found it odd or that I was baffled by the same folks filled with hate in one thread over Enron's issue and how it affected people but in another could support the termination of lives under the guise of bringing 'human rights' to an area. Both seems equally of the human right barrel. One the money to enjoy life and the other life to enjoy money.. or more looser .. enjoy living..
The parallel to me is striking but not fitting everyone just the ones who are of that mind set..