"Since George W. Bush was elected president, at least 25 Democrat elected officials have switched to the GOP"

[BDawg]

<< Prove to me that Bush is as scandalous as Clinton (no, you can't really convince me, but I'd like to see your reasons for making the statement above) >>



You're right, only Jesus can make the blind see again. If you think Bush is completely clean, it just shows a complete ignorance of the subject.

 

[Amused]

<<

<< I was going to answer him, but you summed it up nicely.
Give it up, Tool, this dog wont hunt. >>


Yeah, we have KennyBoy and other Bush buddies pleading the fifth, we have an apparent executive suicide, we have Dick Cheney hiding info from the GAO, we have Campaign finance reform sailing throught congress, we have increased calls for regulation, and Democrats have an issue to attack the GOP with.
And that's just in the first month. Remember how long it took from Paula Jones to the Impeachment. And that was over sex. This is corruption. This dog will not only hunt, my friends, it will bite too. >>



Hmmm. Still no EVIDENCE of wrong doing. Only a conspieracy theory because people wont tell you want you want to hear. Keep trying...

 

[WageSlave]

nef

 

[BooneRebel]

<<

<< Prove to me that Bush is as scandalous as Clinton (no, you can't really convince me, but I'd like to see your reasons for making the statement above) >>



You're right, only Jesus can make the blind see again. If you think Bush is completely clean, it just shows a complete ignorance of the subject. >>



Yet again: I'm completely wrong, completely ignorant, and Bush is just as corrupt as Clinton. But you haven't provided any argument to back up what you're saying. Do you just -feel- that I'm wrong, or is it just the voices talking to you?

 

[Russ]

<< But you haven't provided any argument to back up what you're saying. >>



Boone,

That's a lost cause. They never do.

What Xerox said bears repeating, since liberals like the demoTool always avoid responding to it:



<< They rose to prominence during the Clinton administration. The California power crisis began during the Clinton administration. Don't try to hang something on Bush when he wasn't even in office yet. >>



Russ, NCNE

 

[SuperTool]

<< They rose to prominence during the Clinton administration. The California power crisis began during the Clinton administration. Don't try to hang something on Bush when he wasn't even in office yet. >>



Russ, NCNE[/i] >>



What right wingers need to realize is that Enron rose to prominence in the lax regulatory climate in Texas. Also, Clinton might have been easy on Enron, but CA energy crisis happened under Bush, because of Bush's FERC's lack of action. If FERC stepped in, like they were designed to, to put price caps in place, the incentive to withold supplies would have been removed, and the crisis would be over. We are not talking about new cars or caviar, where you can just pass if the price is too high. We are talking about basic necessities of life here, where people have no choice but to buy. That is why energy market needs to be regulated. But all you Bush apologist like Russ-publican, Xerox-GOPTalkinPointsOnATOT-Man and ConfusedOne don't want to admit that Bush's FERC failed to do the job while Bush's political donors profited at the expense of the people of CA. You want us to believe that it's a coincidence, but clearly Dick Cheney doesn't think so, or he wouldn't be stonewalling the investigation.

 

[Russ]

<< but CA energy crisis happened under Bush >>



No, it ended under Bush. It happened under Clinton. Unless, of course, you're ignorant enough to believe that a problem of that magnitude materializes in a matter of weeks and solves itself just as quickly. Oh, wait, you're the king of ignorance, so I guess you do.

Russ, NCNE

 

[Cerebus451]

<< Hmmm. Still no EVIDENCE of wrong doing. Only a conspieracy theory because people wont tell you want you want to hear. Keep trying... >>


We cannot show you the evidence because it is being fed into shredders in the basement of the White House, conveniently withheld from the public eye by an abuse of executive power. If Clinton had used this same power to have the dress burned there would not have been any physical evidence against him either. Just the word of an intern against his.

It the Bush administration truely has nothing to hide, why are thy trying so hard to hide it?

And just because Bush has not been impeached yet does not mean he is not guilty of anything. The absence of a conviction does not imply innocence.

It might be a conspiracy theory, but any real story of corruption starts as a conspiracy theory. If you turn a blind eye to the conspiracy theory, the corruption goes unchecked and grows. If you call them out to explain themselves and it turns out to be nothing, then no harm is done. They have been called out, and they are hiding in the shadows. That just makes them look more guilty. It may not all be Bush's fault, but he has the power to stop the conspiracy theory by disproving it. He cannot, or at least he has made no attempt to do so. Does that make him guilty? No. Does that make him a shining example of all that is good in this world. Most definitely not. As in all things, all we want is the truth.

 

[goshdarnindie]

Does anyone here (ok, I know most of you do) understand what executive priveledge is. Imagine you have been called in by the President of the United States to give your honest opinion on, I don't know, whether AMD is better then Intel. You're considered and expert in CPU's. Now you talk candidly and you remark, "Intel chips are made so poorely, that most are in danger of exploding on boot-up.

Within the view of your opinion, you believe you're right. However, now lets say that a bunch of public policy groups ask for the transcripts of the meeting, and there you are bad mouthing Intel. Well, besides being destroyed by their marketing department and seen as a lunatic (BTW, their CPU's don't explode... yet), you have also shown the whole world that they must watch what they say to the President or it could be used against them. I.E., you will no longer be giving the President what you view as the best advice.

And by the way, the energy crisis may be over, but California owes BIG in long term contracts that Gray Davis signed to gaurantee that power at way over market prices. Nice try at nationalizing the energy industry.

 

[goshdarnindie]

Dear God Supertool.

Sorry, you're probably a nice guy, its just that I read your last thread.

FERC is an oversight ISO. They aren't supposed to institute price caps, only gaurantee anti-competitive practices and maintain the integrity of the grid. The current energy marketplace works like this:

You buy power if you need it, and sell it if you have it, several months in advance. Usually about 75% of your antipicated load. the rest is done up in short-term contracts. When supply is adequate, no one is going to withhold production if there means of producing it costs less because powerplants don't make any money if they just. We're talking major capital costs. Anyway, if you have a shortage, its usually in about 5% of your total load because the other 20% has been taken care of in the last two or so weeks. Now this five percent happens every day if there is any deviation from the anticipated load or if someone on the trade floor didn't get enough supply to hit the projected load.

What happened in CA is that there was so little generation because nothing had been built in 10 yrs that no one could follow that plan and instead of 5% not being accounted for until the last minute, you're looking at 25%. That means prices are sky high. There is no economic reason to withhold the little bit of production a company has in its portfolio to drive up prices, because it has an obligation (remember FERC) to supply its customers, and it would only be driving up the price on itself.

This was a simple supply shortage. Blame the beauracrats, blame the environmental wackos (I do), blame the energy companies, but there wasn't enough supply, so prices went up. Price caps will do as you say, reduce the suppliers gross income, but it will also tell people "Hey, there really isn't a butt load of money to be made in CA, so don't build any more powerplants and drive down the cost of electricity"




BTW, to be fair, El Paso Energy was caught withholding supply of natural gas, a feul for the power companies, but they got caught. However, that only ran up fuel prices, that didn't affect the shortage in generating capacity.

Have a great day

 

[BooneRebel]

<<

<< Hmmm. Still no EVIDENCE of wrong doing. Only a conspieracy theory because people wont tell you want you want to hear. Keep trying... >>


We cannot show you the evidence because it is being fed into shredders in the basement of the White House, conveniently withheld from the public eye by an abuse of executive power. If Clinton had used this same power to have the dress burned there would not have been any physical evidence against him either. Just the word of an intern against his.

It the Bush administration truely has nothing to hide, why are thy trying so hard to hide it?

And just because Bush has not been impeached yet does not mean he is not guilty of anything. The absence of a conviction does not imply innocence.

It might be a conspiracy theory, but any real story of corruption starts as a conspiracy theory. If you turn a blind eye to the conspiracy theory, the corruption goes unchecked and grows. If you call them out to explain themselves and it turns out to be nothing, then no harm is done. They have been called out, and they are hiding in the shadows. That just makes them look more guilty. It may not all be Bush's fault, but he has the power to stop the conspiracy theory by disproving it. He cannot, or at least he has made no attempt to do so. Does that make him guilty? No. Does that make him a shining example of all that is good in this world. Most definitely not. As in all things, all we want is the truth. >>



OK, now I get it. Bush is corrupt because, apparently, nothing has been found out about him because he hides the evidence. Furthermore, Clinton was a stand-up guy because, while he stepped over more bounds than any other president in history, he did not attempt to hide his transgressions, therefore allowing himself to be exposed.

Did I get that right?

 

[Zwingle]

I am just happy that Bush only has daughters.....we won't see another one in the White House after this one is out. I am not trying to offend any women here, I just don't think a woman will be elected anytime soon. It's a shame too..........

Bush is still early in his term.....scandals will happen......he will be linked to Enron somehow.......

 

[CADsortaGUY]

<<As in all things, all we want is the truth. >>

....YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!!

 

[SuperTool]

<< OK, now I get it. Bush is corrupt because, apparently, nothing has been found out about him because he hides the evidence. Furthermore, Clinton was a stand-up guy because, while he stepped over more bounds than any other president in history, he did not attempt to hide his transgressions, therefore allowing himself to be exposed.

Did I get that right?

>>



You know Bush is in trouble when even his supporters don't want to defend him and instead try to change the subject to Clinton.

 

[Mookow]

<< <<As in all things, all we want is the truth. >>

....YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!!

>>



lol

 

[BooneRebel]

<< You know Bush is in trouble when even his supporters don't want to defend him and instead try to change the subject to Clinton. >>



Have to call BS on this one, SuperTool. You're the one that brought up Clinton's impeccable career highlight with Paula Jones and started comparing him to Bush. I think you initiated the mudraking blaming things on Bush and couldn't handle it when it started turning around on you. I'll be more than happy to defend Bush, but I've yet to see any sort of debate from your side, just excuses for Clinton.

 

[HOWITIS]

has nothing to do with bush, only reason any politican changes parties is for votes. and anyone who would do it (in my eyes) loses all credibility.


and enron gave money to all the politicans in texas. if a democrat was in office the same thing would happen, except the republicans would be making the accusations. anyone who thinks because this company gave money to bush in some illeagle manner is just being nieve.

i find hard to believe hat there are still people stupid enough not to know the nature at politics, and that EVERY major company gives money to ALL politicans in their area, no mater WHAT party.


this is why there trying to pass the polit funding bill. people need to get real.

 

[Amused]

<<

<< OK, now I get it. Bush is corrupt because, apparently, nothing has been found out about him because he hides the evidence. Furthermore, Clinton was a stand-up guy because, while he stepped over more bounds than any other president in history, he did not attempt to hide his transgressions, therefore allowing himself to be exposed.

Did I get that right?

>>



You know Bush is in trouble when even his supporters don't want to defend him and instead try to change the subject to Clinton. >>



There's nothing to defend.