The Washington Times, the repugnant mouthpiece owned by Sung Yun Moon, is only good for fishwrap. I know. I live here.

Originally posted by Colonel
The Washington Times, the repugnant mouthpiece owned by Sung Yun Moon, is only good for fishwrap. I know. I live here.

Don't face the issue colonel, attack the source.

The Washington Times has been KNOWN to lie and skew stories. I completely dismiss it.

Actually, the Clinton administartion's role in the Enron/Citycorp dealings and scandel are well known and not just from this source. Wonder why Robert Rubin draws a 40 million per year salary from Citycorp these days? Sure, the Bush guys were in on it too but what we saw happen with Clinton's guys at the helm wasn't that lawful either. Ever wonder where the invetigation led by Joe Liberman went to? I sure do. Last i heard he had vowed to tie Bush into it which I'm sure he could so why hasn't he? Its because all politicians are criminals, even his group, especially his group who now look at the law as just an obstacle to get around. If we are to ever get to the bottom of Enron, we must look to the beginning of the scandel and that falls squarly in the lap of Robert Rubin and his boss, Mr. Bill Clinton who was either in on it or oblivious to it. its the lesser of two evils..take your pick. Inept or corrupt...which pretty much describes them all. I just love you guys that put forth the idea that one party or another is saintly and the other pure evil. No one's buying it and you shouldn't be selling it. its crap.

Originally posted by Colonel
The Washington Times has been KNOWN to lie and skew stories. I completely dismiss it.

I think you're refering to the New York times reputation, Colonel. If memory serves, it was a Mr. Blair whom won them that shame with questionable and fictional sources. You may completly dismiss it but it seems that everytime this whole Enron thing comes up, you and Bout Time call for the truth then do your best to prevent it from coming to light. I know why your so filled with hate. your whole damn life is politics. Your a walking contradiction who can only allow himself to see one side of any argument. While I haphazardly type in a calm unassuming manor, I picture you writhing in agony as info you've tried for months or even years to suppress gets splattered all over the forum again. It has to be hell. The question I always have in mind is whether or not you ever consider what a loser's game your playing and if it will ever dawn on you that no matter how much rage your attack with, when you bring up ATS tomorrow morning, you have to do it all again from scratch. If you're not Bill Clinton himself, then you're fighting a battle for someone who not only doesn't know you exist but doesn't care a damn thing about you.

"Writhing in agony?"

New York Times a rag like the Washington Times?

Unassuming, calm haphazard posts? You?

"Nurse! Up the medications & order an herbal tea suppository, STAT!!"

"Attack the source, don't face the message"

The sources quoted never hold any merit, so to constantly host opinion from partisan rags/web sites is to be disingenuous to debate...but then again, you are Republicans!

I've written alot on Enron on ATS, particularly on the Republican Senate of the mid 90's that basically raped America and allowed the age of Robber Baron politics to be revisited. L-o-o-k it-u-p!!

Start with 1995, overriding a veto by Bill Clinton, the GOP majority passed the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, which made policing Enron's & Global Crossing's via punative law suit damn near impossible. Soon accounting firms, the companies they audited and the investment banks that sold their stock got very cozy indeed. The rest they say, is history.

Whoa, Bout Time, think you might have done a major fopa there, man. I don't think you were supposed to even admit there was an Enron during the Clinton admin. At least you downplayed the Robert Rubin connection. I wouldn't have brought that up either. Oops, clumsy me, I didn't mean to bring him up. i guess I really blew it. All this time Liberman has been hoping his name would fall from the face of the earth so he could ramp up the committee and hang it all on Bush.

I agree that much of it does deserve to hang on Bush but I don't think pretending half of it didn't happen is any more truthful from one side to the other. I love you guys that try to sell the old "my politician is the only honest one" ideology. I'll bet Clinton pissed holy water didn't he? So, you're saying that all of one side is wrong and the other is flawless?

My medication is fine the way it is, thank you. How's the old blood pressure btw?

Oh and Kudos on the avatar. Its much better than your previous.