WHOOPITY-DOOOO!!!!!

yup. what i don't get is how Frist's assets were suposed to be in a blind trust, yet he ordered his trustors to sell the stock he's supposed to be unaware of a few days before the bad earnings report is publicly released. that's some timing.

___________________
UnauthorizedTranceAddict Youtube Channel where I post older mixes from the TA DJ Promotion Forum

My mixes:

Still up:1:2

Down:3:4:5

Last edited by Spacey Orange on Sep-24-2005 at 20:17

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Meanwhile, Bush is looking for that "swagger" again: Wasn't it that fucking "swagger" that got us in this fucking mess in the first place?

His "swagger" was created by the media. You would be much closer to the mark if you replaced the word "swagger" with either "bravado" or even plain "foolhardiness." Because that is in fact something which Bush and this Neo-con administration have shown to be quite adept.

The way that these ideologues are so completely surrounded with yes men (and women) is to the point where they are so out of touch with the average American, that it's disheartening.

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X The way that these ideologues are so completely surrounded with yes men (and women) is to the point where they are so out of touch with the average American, that it's disheartening.

Those men and women+Bush were put to where they are now by the people of America. As much as you might dislike it the American people voted him back into office for a second term.

The thing I hate most is while talking to my friends they always complain how bush is in office; yet did they vote? nope half of the people capable of voting do not.

What is more disheartening is hearing the American people bitch about this leader but yet they voted for him and the ones who don't vote shouldn't bitch as they obviously do not care what is happening in the world of Politics

quote:

Originally posted by metalgearsolid Those men and women+Bush were put to where they are now by the people of America. As much as you might dislike it the American people voted him back into office for a second term.

You can never underestimate the power of propaganda, my incredibly naive friend. Sure, enough people were duped by Bush's "compassionate conservatism" the first time around when he was selected (+++) by the Supreme Court to be President, but you also have to understand that the true powers which run our government give neither you nor I any real choice other than to vote for those whom they can and will manipulate to serve their own needs. We really see this in just about all elections, but only more recently (thanks to our beloved age of information) has it become ever so apparent. Then, if and when their guy drifts away from or abandons their agenda - they do what they did to both Kennedy's. It's about corporate politics, something which no longer serves the people but more or less the transnational/multinational corporations and other such big business that lobbies the government.

During the second election we were all being too bombarded with terror alerts and orange Homeland inSecurity threat levels in which everyone was clamoring for safety, all the while Dubya was riding the post-9/11 "tough on terror" adrenaline rush that was sweeping through all of the media's channels 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. (Where did those daily terror alerts go, anyway?)

Kerry, a man who had actually served his country during war time, was painted by most of the major media as some weakling flip-flopper, while Bush the Texas Nat'l Guard deserter, was for the most part cast as a chivalrous, almost heroic leader in whom we should all feel secure with as our personal guardian against terror.


I voted for neither.

Anyhow, without having to go into detailed analysis of who and what our Nation as a collective whole was actually voting for, I will say outright that it was most definitely not the individuals, nor the extremist politics which are found within the ideological ranks of the Project for a New American Century or other such fanatically conservative groups. End of story.

Last edited by Trancer-X on Sep-25-2005 at 02:36

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X Project for a New American Century

that link does not work could you probably fix it by any chance

quote:

Originally posted by metalgearsolid that link does not work could you probably fix it by any chance

http://www.oldamericancentury.org/pnac.htm

___________________
UnauthorizedTranceAddict Youtube Channel where I post older mixes from the TA DJ Promotion Forum

My mixes:

Still up:1:2

Down:3:4:5

quote:

Originally posted by Spacey Orange http://www.oldamericancentury.org/pnac.htm

Thanks, Spacey

quote:

Trusting Mr. Frist September 30, 2005; Page A10 When "ethics" is in the political air, it can be hard to sort the real sins from the invented. The way to understand the recent charges against Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is as a case of no good deed going unpunished. The SEC is investigating Mr. Frist for unloading his shares of hospital chain HCA prior to a July earnings warning. Democrats are suggesting that an HCA insider gave Mr. Frist a call to tip him off. Mr. Frist denies it, and to date there is zero evidence -- nada, zilch, nunca -- to support the allegation. And nothing in Mr. Frist's past or character suggests he's the kind of politician who'd try to scam the system to save a few bucks. The real issue here is the modern demand that politicians abandon all acquaintance with the world of commerce when they take office, lest they have a "conflict of interest." It looks to us as if Mr. Frist's good-faith attempt to comply with this demand is what has landed him in the headlines. A well-paid surgeon before he ran for the Senate in 1994, Mr. Frist also owned stock in HCA, a company his family helped to found. In an attempt to insulate himself from criticism, Senator Frist and his family put some $10 million of HCA stock into what are known as "blind trusts." Blind trusts must be approved by the Senate Ethics Committee and are subject to a roster of rules. The idea is that some outside "trustee" manages the money, and the elected official is ignorant of his investments. In practice these trusts are never as "blind" as billed. While it is true that Mr. Frist would not have known what was in his trust on any one particular day, the trustees did send him general communications (on file with the Senate) about his holdings. No surprise, then, that these trusts have hardly spared Mr. Frist criticism. In 2004, a liberal group filed an ethics complaint arguing that Mr. Frist's ties with HCA should bar him from voting on medical malpractice reform. The latest allegations were leveled by yet another partisan group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. Its insider-trading complaint so far rings hollow. Mr. Frist has said he first requested legal advice about selling his HCA stock in April to avoid any hint of future conflicts, and received Ethics Committee approval. If he did indeed ask for advice in April, this would have been before even HCA would have forseen earnings trouble. April would also have been a smart time to sell, with the company's stock up 40% for the year. The irony is that Mr. Frist was never required either to establish a blind trust or to sell his shares. In both cases he did so to insulate himself from the appearance of any conflict. Instead, in doing both he has only made himself a bigger target for those who'd suggest he has something to hide. They want politicians to abjure all worldly goods, like Ralph Nader. What these accusers miss is the entire point of the concept of "disclosure." The Senate ethics manual declares that Members should not be required to divest themselves of assets: "Instead, public financial disclosure provides the mechanism for monitoring and deterring conflicts." The guide also questions the wisdom of having politicians fully strip themselves of "worldly goods," given that it is "likely to insulate a legislator from the personal and economic interests that his or her constituency, or society in general, has in governmental decisions and policy." Good point. The disclosure rules exist to prevent blatant conflicts, but they were never intended to bar Members from knowing what they owned or what was sold. Members of Congress ought to have some acquaintance with the world they represent, including private business. URL for this article: http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB...6856348,00.html