President Bush has the most impressive track record of any Pres!

[Chris]

Yes, amending the constitution is an American thing to do, but it is usually to help with ones Civil Liberties/Civil Rights, not to hinder them when they are not harming anyone.

Plus, I don't care if Bush is religion biased, I just don't want to see an Ameican government that is religion biased.

Chris

[bonebreaker]

Yeah, PLEASE VOTE THIRD PARTY. IMO, that's one less vote for Kerry. BB

[imonboardtoo]

We're talking about an issue with the amendment to make marriage officially between a man and a woman only. It's not posed by Bush as a religious argument although we can infer whatever we want. And like I said before, everything is religion biased...for or against or neutral. It's inevitable.

By the way, if we are to argue against religion in government, then we should rewrite every state's constitution (an the District of Columbia) because they start with language like..."We the people of ...in gratitude to God..." or something similar. All of them acknowledge a deity.

I'm no bible-thumper although I feel like I'm having to defend believers here. But, religion is not the evil. Intolerance is. On that, I hope we can agree.

[Chris]

Okay, heres the deal. The constitution does acknowledge a diety, and thats fine with me. I just don't believe it should become bias towards one religion. There are many religions that allow same sex marriages, hence amending the constitution would create a biased government.

To say Bush didn't suggest this amendment as a religious person is bullshit.

Chris

[checkoutmyrapp]

I agree with the fact that there should not be an amendment to ban same sex marrage because that is more of a thing that should be determined by the church, that should not be a government concern. As far as the fight on terrorism I don't think that there is anyway that someone whould come out looking good in everyones eye because no matter what you do there is always going to be people that disagree with something that you do and how you do it. I beleive he has handled it as best as he could given the situtation of the country.

[Lexi]

It is pathetic that they use religion when we are supposed to be seperating church from state. (though whenever an argument starts, they begin all the religious babble)

Because Repbulicans are considered conseratives, this is what Bush is playing up to. (banning gay marriages, anti abortion shit, etc) One is going to play up to the people that they feel will give them their vote.

Democrats are always talking of "lowering taxes, helping welfare" etc... Republicans are constantly talking of the religious crap, helping all the "seniors" with Medicare, etc...

I think its such bullshit when neither delivers... but you have to understand that they are trying to get our vote, and they usually they LIE.
I know I sound like I have no clue, but at the same time, you cant look at either side and say, "HE's the liar" when in fact, most are bullshitting their way through.

[checkoutmyrapp]

If you have ever noticed that they all say what you want to hear when they are trying to get elected and then when in office they stick to the plan that they had never told you about. Everyone always says no new taxes and no more laws but that it the first thing they always do.

[imonboardtoo]

Lexi and Check...so right, guys!

I'm trying to make some rational points about the amendment and religion, but that doesn't change politics one bit because politicians are all agenda-chasers, and most of the time it's about helping themselves to our money! Most of the public interest stuff is pandering to their party and photo opps.

And I also agree that there's no pleasing everybody, as the back and forth on this and every other thread proves!

[Chris]

Originally posted by Lexi
It is pathetic that they use religion when we are supposed to be seperating church from state. (though whenever an argument starts, they begin all the religious babble)

Because Repbulicans are considered conseratives, this is what Bush is playing up to. (banning gay marriages, anti abortion shit, etc) One is going to play up to the people that they feel will give them their vote.

Democrats are always talking of "lowering taxes, helping welfare" etc... Republicans are constantly talking of the religious crap, helping all the "seniors" with Medicare, etc...

I think its such bullshit when neither delivers... but you have to understand that they are trying to get our vote, and they usually they LIE.
I know I sound like I have no clue, but at the same time, you cant look at either side and say, "HE's the liar" when in fact, most are bullshitting their way through.

:agree: I totally agree.

Chris

[checkoutmyrapp]

The economy goes through times like this all the time to rest itself.

[Primal Instinct]

Originally posted by hitmansb
The corporate fraud that crushed the market happened under Clinton's watch...so putting it all on Bush doesn't fly with me.

You are correct, Hitmansb.

No one administration can or should take the fall for corporate malfeasance. There was corporate corruption and insider trading abuse under all administrations in the last 30-40 years. Although Bush certainly was an integral part of it, if you take into account the Harken Energy Scandal in which he dumped shares from insider knowledge. He was and under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission for his part in the failure and subsequent sale of shares at market value 2 months before it went under. He made over $870,000. on the illicit sale. It was known at the time that the company would be bankrupt when he sold the shares. The proceeds went towards buying the Texas Rangers baseball team. Due to his run for Govenor of Texas, the SEC dropped the investigation but stated in an official letter that it by no way meant that he was absolved from guilt.


Here is the story from the Dallas Morning News:



October 11, 1994

Richards wants Bush to reveal documents from SEC inquiry

GOP challenger denies insider trading with Harken Energy stock


Author: Charlotte-Anne Lucas; Austin Bureau of The Dallas Morning News

Edition: HOME FINAL
Section: NEWS
Page: 22D
Dateline: AUSTIN
Index Terms:
ELECTIONS '94

TEXAS GOVERNOR


Estimated printed pages: 4



Article Text:

AUSTIN - Gov. Ann Richards' re-election campaign called Monday for the release of all documents relating to a federal securities investigation into stock sold by George W. Bush more than four years ago.

The investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission involved Mr. Bush's well-publicized sale in 1990 of shares in Harken Energy Co. Mr. Bush was on Harken's board of directors at the time and a member of its audit committee. The sale occurred eight days before the end of Harken's second quarter and almost two months before Harken reported disappointing financial results, including large write-offs. Its stock price dropped by half shortly thereafter.

Mr. Bush has repeatedly defended the sale.

Although the stock sale received much attention, the federal investigation wasn't confirmed until a letter from the SEC came to light last week. In it, the agency said its investigation had been terminated without reaching a conclusion.

Mr. Bush had sought the letter to prepare for his campaign for the governor's office, according to Dallas lawyer Robert Jordan, who represents Mr. Bush.

"George was getting ready to run for governor and wanted to be sure there was nothing out there that could be of concern," said Mr. Jordan.

A top SEC official signed the letter on Oct. 18, 1993. Three weeks later, Mr. Bush formally announced his candidacy.

Mr. Bush sold 212,140 Harken shares on June 22, 1990, for $4.125 each, or a total of $875,078. On Aug. 20, after Harken announced its results for the June 30 quarter, the stock price fell to $2.375 per share.

The SEC forbids a company's insiders - such as corporate directors - from trading stock based on "inside" knowledge of significant, nonpublic information. Violators face SEC sanctions and the threat of lawsuits from other stockholders.

Mr. Bush and his attorney said he was not aware of the impending losses when he sold the stock.

"I absolutely had no idea and would not have sold had I known," said Mr. Bush.

Another Harken director at the time, E. Stuart Watson of Richardson, who served on the company's audit and restructuring committees with Mr. Bush, said they were constantly made aware of the company's finances.

"You bet we were," said Mr. Watson, who says he supports Mr. Bush in his race against Ms. Richards. "We were both trying to keep that company on the straight and narrow."

Mr. Bush said Mr. Watson "is mistaken."

"I can't say it any more strongly than that," Mr. Bush said. "I would not have sold stock, nor would I have been cleared to sell stock by the company attorney, had I been operating on some kind of (inside) information. Not only that, but in a year's time the stock price doubled."

In a news release issued Monday, Chuck McDonald, a spokesman for the Richards campaign, said: "George W. Bush should immediately release all documents relating to the SEC investigation of his 1990 stock sale. . . . If Mr. Bush did nothing wrong, as he claims, then he has nothing to lose by letting the SEC release his file."

According to securities experts and stock exchange policies, Mr. Bush, as a member of the audit committee, should have been aware of the company's finances.

Experts and lawyers recommend that because of federal securities laws, insiders should wait until after earnings announcements - when the public learns of the losses - to trade stock.

In response to a Freedom of Information Act request from The Dallas Morning News, the SEC confirmed that it began a preliminary inquiry into the transaction on April 5, 1991.

In its letter last year to Mr. Bush's lawyer - a rare action by the agency - the SEC said, "the investigation has been terminated as to the conduct of Mr. Bush, and . . . at this time, no enforcement action is contemplated with respect to him."

The letter, signed by an associate director of enforce! ment, goes on to say that it "must in no way be construed as indicatin g that the party has been exonerated or that no action may ultimately result" from the investigation.

Mr. Jordan said Mr. Bush never was interviewed by the SEC during the inquiry.

In interviews with The News and other media organizations this year, Mr. Bush has said he "needed to liquefy" his Harken stock to pay off a loan he got to invest in the Texas Rangers baseball club, of which he is managing general partner.

Mr. Watson, the former director who served on two key committees with Mr. Bush at the time, said they were kept current on the company's finances and knew that losses were to be announced.

Earnings reports at Harken "were never a surprise to us," said Mr. Watson, who joined Harken's board after retiring as a senior executive with Arco USA in 1982. As members of the audit committee, the two were briefed by the company treasurer and the inside and outside auditors, Mr. Watson said.

According to Harken's annual report for 1990, both men also sat on what the company called its fairness committee. That group met eight times after May 1 to examine how a major restructuring the company was planning might affect those who held common stock.

Mr. Watson said that to his recollection, all of those meetings occurred before the end of the second quarter, in which Harken lost $22 million.

The restructuring accounted for a one-time loss of $9.8 million in the second quarter, the company reported at the time. The remaining $12.2 million in losses were from operations, interest and corporate expenses.

"Stuart Watson's memory is not right," Mr. Bush said. "This has been fully investigated by the SEC. If this were the case, the SEC would have said, `Wait a minute.' But that was not the case."

Mikel Faulkner, who was president and chief executive officer of Harken then, said he does not remember how much financial information the directors had at the time. Calls to other Harken directors were not returned.

Mr. Jordan said his investigation of the period around Mr. Bush's stock sale convinced him that no one knew in June that the huge loss from the restructuring would be applied to the second quarter, something he called an "accounting adjustment."and made public Aug. 20.



Copyright 1994 The Dallas Morning News Company
Record Number: DAL1442854

[muscleman9]

9-11 happened on Bush's watch. He is the first president incapable of protecting us from terrorist attacks on our soil.

Bush is far more interested in his family than the country's wellbeing -- that is why he attacked Iraq -- to finish the job his father was criticized for not doing..

His idiotic energy policy is the reason we are more dependent on foreign oil and it is why gas prices have doubled during his presidency.

He is told the country is under attack and he continues reading with children for seven minutes.

He was wired for the debates because he cannot think for himself.

The W stands for "What an idiot!"

[Bouncer]

Originally posted by muscleman9
9-11 happened on Bush's watch.

And it was planned on clintons watch.

[bonebreaker]

Originally posted by muscleman9
9-11 happened on Bush's watch. He is the first president incapable of protecting us from terrorist attacks on our soil.

Bush is far more interested in his family than the country's wellbeing -- that is why he attacked Iraq -- to finish the job his father was criticized for not doing..

His idiotic energy policy is the reason we are more dependent on foreign oil and it is why gas prices have doubled during his presidency.

He is told the country is under attack and he continues reading with children for seven minutes.

He was wired for the debates because he cannot think for himself.

The W stands for "What an idiot!"

Do you honestly think that ANY President could have kept that from happening, (9/11)?? Do you, really? If you do, you are indeed an idiot. BB

[Stonecold54]

Originally posted by THE BOUNCER
And it was planned on clintons watch.

and we are the ones that trained them as well in the 80's. We created our own monster. isn't it ironic!!!! :(