• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

The hypocrisy of the Bush administration

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Is it me or is anyone else disgusted by the politicians from both parties. Party of Lincoln, party of Roosevelt. Please. :|
These parties stand for nothing anymore.
Is nothing not bought or sold in Washington? A major house cleaning is in order. There is really no difference or any choice between the two parties. What's the point of voting?
American people need to learn government, and stop listening to these dumb commercials paid for with special interest money.
Click to expand...

I believe that usually I am on the opposite side of your posts. I am with you here. The "career" politicians have to go. Making a living from "serving the people " is not what the founders intended.

But, I also think they intended for the "people" to be active in the process (and thought they would be). I don't mean just voting. At least knowing how it all works and why. Last week I was getting a cup of coffee and these two whining yuppie cracks were bitching about how it was so stupid that little Johnny and little Melanie had to take the constitution test to graduate. It was probably the only education they had ever had in our government in 12 years for Christ sake.



 
Interesting how nearly every post has skirted the original issue. Instead, it turns to clinton and "family values", or an attack on politics in general.

Dems....still mad that Gore lost.
Click to expand...

If you are referring to me, I did vote for Gore but in hindsight am glad that he lost. Critizing the president does not automatically make you a democrat. I''m not happy with either main party.

Im not saying the changes shouldn't go through. I just thought I'd show a few people the truth, that's all. 🙂
 
Originally posted by: Lucky
Interesting how nearly every post has skirted the original issue. Instead, it turns to clinton and "family values", or an attack on politics in general.

Dems....still mad that Gore lost.
Click to expand...

If you are referring to me, I did vote for Gore but in hindsight am glad that he lost. Critizing the president does not automatically make you a democrat. I''m not happy with either main party.

Im not saying the changes shouldn't go through. I just thought I'd show a few people the truth, that's all. 🙂
Click to expand...


What "truth" have I been guided to ? I think I missed it.

 
Originally posted by: 308nato
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Is it me or is anyone else disgusted by the politicians from both parties. Party of Lincoln, party of Roosevelt. Please. :|
These parties stand for nothing anymore.
Is nothing not bought or sold in Washington? A major house cleaning is in order. There is really no difference or any choice between the two parties. What's the point of voting?
American people need to learn government, and stop listening to these dumb commercials paid for with special interest money.
Click to expand...

I believe that usually I am on the opposite side of your posts. I am with you here. The "career" politicians have to go. Making a living from "serving the people " is not what the founders intended.

But, I also think they intended for the "people" to be active in the process (and thought they would be). I don't mean just voting. At least knowing how it all works and why. Last week I was getting a cup of coffee and these two whining yuppie cracks were bitching about how it was so stupid that little Johnny and little Melanie had to take the constitution test to graduate. It was probably the only education they had ever had in our government in 12 years for Christ sake.
Click to expand...

Thanks for hitting the nail on the head - as long as the electorate insists on being stupid, short-sighted, and self-centered, then we get the government we deserve. A democratically elected government is only a reflection of the society which elevates it to power, so we've dug our own grave on this one.

Bush may or may have engaged in shady dealing regarding those loans/whatever, but in the grand scheme of things, I just don't care. I'd much rather worry about this - another massive federal entitlement which we really can't afford. Just like Medicare and every other massive social program enacted based more on emotion and less on logic, it's going to cost much more than projected (as if $320-400 BILLION over 7-8 years isn't enough) and be impossible to repeal.
 
Dems....still mad that Gore lost.
Click to expand...



They're still mad because they don't have anyone else in their party that can beat Bush in 2004. Gore is all the democrats have, although, beyond Bush, there are only 1 or 2 Republicans that would be a strong canidate. Yes, one of those is Mr. Powell.
 
The hypocrisy of the Bush administration
Click to expand...

The hypocrisy of the _______ administration. You fill in the blank. The guy who was President before this one was a hypocrite, the guy who comes after him will be a hypocrite. We're guaranteed that the President will be, because that's what the American voter demands. I want government to cut wasteful spending, but invest more in schools. I want tons of governmental services, but i want some other taxpayer to foot the bill.

People who are honest when running for office get destroyed at the ballot box. Remember "i won't rule out raising taxes" Mondale, who then promptly proceeded to lose 49 states in the '84 election? Voters in general don't want honest answers, they want someone to tell them what they want to hear, then to reserve the right to get all upset later on and make jokes about dishonest politicians.
 
Yep..it's a rigged game to steal your money under the guise of "investing" . Just like the house will let a few gamblers win for appearances, wall street does the same. Inside trading is the norm. If your not in the loop you are indeed gambling against tall odds.
Scandal is a way of business with your elected royality. Remember the savings and loan scandal and the taxpayer funded "resolution trust fund"??
 
Yet You still posted this?
Click to expand...


You might notice I posted three articles, not just one. The insider-trading allegations were just one part of it, mind you. He also failed to file proper documents:

An internal SEC memorandum concluded that he had broken the law, but no charges were filed
Click to expand...

Not that I think thats a big deal. And we need not mention that the National Review is conservative. 😀

 
Originally posted by: Lucky
Yet You still posted this?
Click to expand...


You might notice I posted three articles, not just one. The insider-trading allegations were just one part of it, mind you. He also failed to file proper documents:

An internal SEC memorandum concluded that he had broken the law, but no charges were filed
Click to expand...

Not that I think thats a big deal. And we need not mention that the National Review is conservative. 😀
Click to expand...


It looks to me like Bush was engaging in what was "normal business practices" at the time. That is not to say that what he was doing was right. It wasn't in light of the written law. But, these CEO's seemed to know what they could, and couldn't, get away with in regards to the SEC and Justice Department coming down on their asses. Executives seem to have that "It's ok to steal office supplies" mentality only on a much grander scale. And that seemed to be relatively mild in Bush's tenure but has gotten out of hand in the tech market boom.

Bush has to acknowledge that these CEO "perks" and CFO Balance Sheet adjustments are way out of hand. What else is he going to do? Not do anything because he was a CEO? No, he has to do all that he can do to deter this behavior and restore confidence in the markets.

Do you think that your local Chief of Police has never broken the law? Would you think he is unqualified to do his job, or that he shouldn't expect others to follow the law?

Also, remember that a lot of the things Clinton did were while he WAS IN OFFICE. I don't think that is the case with Bush.

BTW, Lucky, I am with you on your sig.
 
I'd much rather worry about this - another massive federal entitlement which we really can't afford. Just like Medicare and every other massive social program enacted based more on emotion and less on logic, it's going to cost much more than projected (as if $320-400 BILLION over 7-8 years isn't enough) and be impossible to repeal.
Click to expand...
Pathetic isn't it? The repubs of just a 20 years ago would never have traded larger government for votes.

The only time the Ds and Rs didn't collectively mess up too badly was during Clinton's 8 years. I think because the Ds had the White House and the Rs controlled Congress, the Rs actually played the role of a true opposition party, negating a lot of the social programs the Ds wanted to implement. Of the "lesser of two evils", this scenario seems to work best, but it only slows what is a systemic problem.

When the Rs have the White House and either the Ds or Rs control Congress, we get the Big Gubment that George Bush Jr. said he was against during his campaign.
 
Originally posted by: Lucky[/b

You might notice I posted three articles, not just one. The insider-trading allegations were just one part of it, mind you. He also failed to file proper documents:
Click to expand...

TWO of your articles refer to bush.

The headline -

Bush?s Insider Connections Preceded Huge Profit On Stock Deal


HIGHLY BIASED and FALSE.


On the third question, whether the news of Harken's unexpectedly large loss hurt the company's investors, the SEC examined Harken's share price just before and just after news of the loss was made public. The announcement came at 9:34 A.M. on August 20, 1990. When the market opened that morning, according to the SEC, Harken's stock was selling at $3 per share. It stayed at that level until after noon, when it began a slow slide to $2.375 per share. The next day, however, it rebounded to $3 per share. If the loss announcement had been a bombshell, SEC investigators reasoned, the stock would most likely have fallen immediately and stayed down. "The conclusion of the Office of Economic Analysis is that, because the price of Harken did not immediately react to the earnings announcement and there is no news that explains Harken's return to its pre-announcement price of $3 on August 21, 1990, the earnings announcement did not provide investors with new material information," the SEC said. Furthermore, even though Harken stock moved down for the rest of 1990, it recovered its value ? and more ? the next year, when it hit $8 a share.
Click to expand...

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top