Liberals are sooooo stupid.
 

As evidenced here in this group, liberals remain as dumb as a box
of rocks.

Liberals are still trying to bash President Bush as if Kerry won and we
all know Kerry lost.

Liberals are still bashing America as if America lost and we all know
America hasn't lost.

They are still bashing Halliburton and Vice President Cheney as if
Halliburton and Mr. Cheney lost and we all know both are big
winners.

Liberals are still in the position of what is good for America is bad
for them and what is good for them is bad for America and we all
know it.

There's nothing worse than a bunch of whining, complaining losers
who are too stupid to realize they lost.

CN

Capt. Neal® wrote:

As evidenced here in this group, liberals remain as dumb as a box
of rocks.

Liberals are still trying to bash President Bush as if Kerry won and we
all know Kerry lost.

Liberals are still bashing America as if America lost and we all know
America hasn't lost.

They are still bashing Halliburton and Vice President Cheney as if
Halliburton and Mr. Cheney lost and we all know both are big
winners.

When they start talking Halliburton, they either have an ax to grind, or
they're just too stupid to know any better.

Dick Cheney's probably glad he's had absolutely no financial interest in
the fate of Halliburton for over 4 years. All the information about Cheney
to the contrary is politically motivated jingoism, because the liberal
mouthbreathers fall for it. Cheney gets a standard deferred compensation
from Halliburton, a relative pittance, paid like an annuity. He's paid the
same whether Halliburton goes belly up, or succeeds.

Halliburton's Net Tangible Assets
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bs?s=HAL&annual

December 2001: $4,032,000,000
December 2002: $2,835,000,000
December 2003: $1,877,000,000


Bush, Kerry Release Tax Returns
WASHINGTON, April 13, 2004
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in611620.shtml

Mr. Bush reported $822,126 in adjusted gross income for last year, on which
he paid $227,490 in federal income taxes — or about 28 percent, according
to the president's federal returns released Tuesday by the White House.

The president and his wife, Laura, listed as income his presidential
salary, interest and the investment income from trusts that hold their
assets.

[snip]

2003: The Bushes reported donating $68,360 to churches and charitable
organizations.

[snip]

The Bushes' income and tax bill was slightly lower than the previous year,
when the First Couple reported $856,056 in adjusted gross income and paid
$268,719 in federal income taxes. For 2002, the Bushes paid about 31
percent of their income in federal taxes.

The White House also released the 2003 tax return filed by Vice President
Dick Cheney and his wife, Lynne. They reported $1.3 million in adjusted
gross income and owed $253,067 in federal taxes. The Cheneys' 2003 tax
bill — much lower than the $341,114 they paid for 2002 on just slightly
less money — represented just 20 percent of their income.

For 2002, the Cheneys paid 29 percent of their adjusted gross income in
federal taxes. Their income includes the vice president's $198,600
government salary and the $178,437 he earned in deferred compensation from
Halliburton Co., the Dallas-based energy services firm he headed until Aug.
16, 2000. Cheney elected in 1998 to recoup over five years a portion of the
money he made in 1999 as chief executive officer of Halliburton.

"The amount of deferred compensation received by the vice president is
fixed and is not affected by Halliburton's current economic performance or
earnings in any way," said a statement released by the vice president's
office — a word-for-word reiteration of the statement he released last
year.

The vice president's office made the statement to explain the deferred
compensation. Cheney's office has repeatedly stated that the vice president
doesn't have a financial stake in the success of Halliburton, nor does he
have anything to do with defense contracts.

The Cheneys' income also includes Mrs. Cheney's income from work at the
American Enterprise Institute, a Washington-based think tank, and
compensation from her service on the Reader's Digest board of directors in
2003.

The White House distributed the Bushes' federal form 1040 for 2003 with
attached schedules two days before the April 15 filing deadline. For
Cheney, only the federal form 1040 was released.

The Bushes reported itemized deductions of $95,043, including $68,360 to
churches and charitable organizations, including Evergreen Chapel at Camp
David, Md., Tarrytown United Methodist Church in Austin, Texas, St. John's
Church in Washington, D.C., the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston,
Texas and the federal government's Combined Federal Campaign.

The Bushes paid $21,352 in state property taxes on their ranch near
Crawford, Texas, up from $19,902 last year.

The Cheneys reported itemized deductions of $454,649. The couple donated
$321,141 to charity in 2003, mostly in royalties from the sales of Mrs.
Cheney's books, "America: A Patriotic Primer," "A is for Abigail" and soon-
to-be-out "Fifty States."

Mr. Bush overpaid his 2003 taxes by $61,451, and elected to apply the
entire amount to their 2004 tax bill.

The Cheneys overpaid their taxes by $5,712 and also directed that amount to
go toward their 2004 taxes.

John Deere wrote:
Dick Cheney's probably glad he's had absolutely no financial interest in
the fate of Halliburton for over 4 years.

That must be why he was censured for conflict of interest.


... All the information about Cheney
to the contrary is politically motivated jingoism

That certainly explains why he was not only censured for conflict of
interest, but by a body with a Republican majority.

Vice President Dick Cheney still has a large ( ~$5 million IIRC,
probably not much to him) stake in Halliburton in the form of stock
options and uncashed bonusses. He has said that he will donate the
entire bundle to charity, but AFAIK has not done so yet.

DSK

DSK wrote:

John Deere wrote:
Dick Cheney's probably glad he's had absolutely no financial interest
in
the fate of Halliburton for over 4 years.

That must be why he was censured for conflict of interest.


... All the information about Cheney
to the contrary is politically motivated jingoism

That certainly explains why he was not only censured for conflict of
interest, but by a body with a Republican majority.

Vice President Dick Cheney still has a large ( ~$5 million IIRC,
probably not much to him) stake in Halliburton in the form of stock
options and uncashed bonusses. He has said that he will donate the
entire bundle to charity, but AFAIK has not done so yet.

DSK

Like I said, only zealots, kooks, and mouthbreathers believe this "Cheney
is a crook" stuff. Cheney and Bush are squeaky clean, and it drives the
left nuts.

John Deere wrote:

Like I said, only zealots, kooks, and mouthbreathers believe this "Cheney
is a crook" stuff. Cheney and Bush are squeaky clean, and it drives the
left nuts.


"Squeaky clean"? Hardly. Bush was never cleared of his insider trading
charges.

Jeff Morris wrote:

John Deere wrote:

Like I said, only zealots, kooks, and mouthbreathers believe
this "Cheney
is a crook" stuff. Cheney and Bush are squeaky clean, and it drives the
left nuts.


"Squeaky clean"? Hardly. Bush was never cleared of his insider trading
charges.

"Not Cleared" is boilerplate SEC language for any investigation that can't
find anything to charge the target with. No legal process ever declares
anyone "innocent." That's for God to decide. Most voters don't realize
that, so that's why the phrase "not cleared" gets repeated over and over
again by Bush-hating crowd.

The Harkin "insider trading" case, aside from the political pressure (on
the SEC) by Texas Democrats to get Bush, was very hard to make, since
Harkin stock sold at double the price just a year after Bush sold it all
(to buy the baseball team.) If Bush had held on to it for just another
year, he would have gotten twice the price. Inside traders usually sell at
the top, and not halfway up. I guess you'd say Bush was just too dumb to do
it right.

Dave wrote:

On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 21:24:00 -0000 (GMT), "John Deere"

said:

"Not Cleared" is boilerplate SEC language for any investigation that
can't
find anything to charge the target with.

I don't recall ever seeing such language from the SEC, and I do read their
site pretty regularly. If they decide they don't have the goods, they
quietly drop the investigation. Assuming, of course, that the staff has
managed to persuade the Commission to even institute a formal
investigation.
Most often what the popular press calls an "investigation" is a series of
requests for people to talk to them voluntarily.

Dave

SEC's actual language (October 1993):

"must in no way be construed as indicating that the party has been
exonerated or that no action may ultimately result"

Dave wrote:
On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 11:45:48 -0500, Jeff Morris
said:


Bush was never cleared of his insider trading
charges.


That's not the way the SEC works, Jeff. They don't "clear" anybody of
anything unless they institute a proceeding and actually lose it. If they
don't institute a formal proceeding they simply drop it.

Dave

You're correct from a legal point of view, however, it is clear that he
violated the rules concerning insider trading, and he violated the
regulation required reporting the transaction. The SEC (run by a Bush
Sr appointee, of course) declined to pursue the matter. The SEC General
Council (who would have been in charge of any prosecution) was James
Doty, formerly of the same law firm that represented Bush in the matter,
and in fact had worked for Bush Jr. on other matters.

Some may try to write this off as just an administrative mistake,
forgetting to file some forms, but this was real insider trading - the
same thing people go to jail for. In fact, the company lawyer
specifically advised against it, say that they would be in trouble if
they sold stock after they received this info. Bush apparently figured
that as the son of the president he could get away with anything. And
he was right.

Compare this to the $40 mil spent by the Republicans to uncover nothing
about Whitewater.

John Deere wrote:
Jeff Morris wrote:


John Deere wrote:

Like I said, only zealots, kooks, and mouthbreathers believe

this "Cheney

is a crook" stuff. Cheney and Bush are squeaky clean, and it drives the
left nuts.


"Squeaky clean"? Hardly. Bush was never cleared of his insider trading
charges.


"Not Cleared" is boilerplate SEC language for any investigation that can't
find anything to charge the target with. No legal process ever declares
anyone "innocent." That's for God to decide. Most voters don't realize
that, so that's why the phrase "not cleared" gets repeated over and over
again by Bush-hating crowd.

The Harkin "insider trading" case, aside from the political pressure (on
the SEC) by Texas Democrats to get Bush, was very hard to make, since
Harkin stock sold at double the price just a year after Bush sold it all
(to buy the baseball team.) If Bush had held on to it for just another
year, he would have gotten twice the price. Inside traders usually sell at
the top, and not halfway up. I guess you'd say Bush was just too dumb to do
it right.


You have an odd definition of insider trading. The truth is that on
June 7 1990 Bush was told his company would shut down on July 1 if they
didn't get new funding. On June 15 he was advised that selling stock at
this time would be viewed as insider trading. On June 22 he sold over
$800,000 worth at $4. By the end of the Summer it was down to $3, at
the end of the year it was $1.25.

The fact that a year or so later it was back up is irrelevant. Bush has
to be judged on his knowledge and actions at the time. In reality,
Harlen was up and down a number of times over the years. Just as one
would expect from a company set up for "pump and dump."

Dave wrote:
On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 18:12:20 -0500, Jeff Morris
said:


You're correct from a legal point of view, however, it is clear that he
violated the rules concerning insider trading, and he violated the
regulation required reporting the transaction.


You're hopelessly confused here. Form 4 is filed because of Sections 16(a)
and 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Under those sections, a
company is entitled to, and in fact effectively required to, recover any
profit an officer, director or 10% or more shareholder makes on a purchase
and sale, or sale and purchase, of the company's stock within any six month
period. The recovery is totally unaffected by whether the officer, director
or shareholder had any inside information. Late filing of these forms is so
common, that the SEC has a separate designation for annual reports of a
company where any insider has been late in filing Form 4. I've seen many,
many of these forms filed late, and I've never heard of an insider's getting
so much as a phone call about the late filing. So as to the late form, Bush
was treated just like any other officer, director or 10% shareholder.

As to the insider trading, I just don't know what the evidence was. The
Commission doesn't publish anything when it terminates an investigation
without starting an enforcement proceeding. The mere fact that someone sold,
and adverse information became public at a later date isn't enough to make
out a claim. The Commission would have to show that Bush knew the
information at the time he sold. Having been involved in a few similar
cases, I can tell you that ain't easy in many cases.

James Doty is a widely respected securities lawyer among those who practice
in the area. He'd have been nuts to damage a well-earned reputation by
putting in the "fix." But of course that won't stop the fringe freaks from
making up conspiracy stories.

Dave
You crack me up Dave. You put so much effort into making this sound
respectable, but all you've done is shown why so many lawyers are
considered the scum of the Earth. Are you really trying to claim that
when the president of a company sells a large block of stock a week
after being told that the company may fold in two weeks is not the very
definition of "insider trading"?

OK Dave, how about some more double-talk. That will really convince us.

Dave wrote:
On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 19:06:46 -0500, Jeff Morris
said:


You have an odd definition of insider trading. The truth is that on
June 7 1990 Bush was told his company would shut down on July 1 if they
didn't get new funding. On June 15 he was advised that selling stock at
this time would be viewed as insider trading. On June 22 he sold over
$800,000 worth at $4. By the end of the Summer it was down to $3, at
the end of the year it was $1.25.


So did they get new funding? When? If they got it, when was it announced?
Did the stock rise or fall on the announcement? What other factors were
likely to have been affecting the stock from June to December of 1990?

These things don't lend themselves to the kind of simplistic analysis the
political scandal sheets like to push.

Sure it does. The ups and down of the stock following the event are not
relevant. Actually they are relevant, since it appears to be part of a
classic "pump and dump" scheme. But that's another scandal you probably
don't want to talk about.

Bush was told his company was tanking. Bush sold is stock. This is
called "insider Trading," not "squeaky clean."

In article ,
Dave wrote:
On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 19:06:46 -0500, Jeff Morris
said:

You have an odd definition of insider trading. The truth is that on
June 7 1990 Bush was told his company would shut down on July 1 if they
didn't get new funding. On June 15 he was advised that selling stock at
this time would be viewed as insider trading. On June 22 he sold over
$800,000 worth at $4. By the end of the Summer it was down to $3, at
the end of the year it was $1.25.

So did they get new funding? When? If they got it, when was it announced?
Did the stock rise or fall on the announcement? What other factors were
likely to have been affecting the stock from June to December of 1990?

These things don't lend themselves to the kind of simplistic analysis the
political scandal sheets like to push.

Dave

And besides, Mr. Poodle is an expert when it comes to double-talk.



--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

Dave wrote:
On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 20:09:37 -0500, Jeff Morris
said:


Are you really trying to claim that
when the president of a company sells a large block of stock a week
after being told that the company may fold in two weeks is not the very
definition of "insider trading"?


I'm telling you that you have to know more of the facts before making
wild-eyed accusations. For example, suppose that he learned just before the
sale that the company had just received a commitment for a large financing
on very favorable terms, and that when the financing was announced after he
sold, the stock took a big jump up.

Dave
We have to know more? Like the Enron style fake company manipulations?
Like the generous loans to officers forgiven? Like the stock sales at
40% discount? Oh yes, this is a "squeaky clean" operation!

You're cracking us up Dave! Maybe next you'll explain how Nixon was
not a crook!

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 20:09:37 -0500, Jeff Morris
said:

Are you really trying to claim that
when the president of a company sells a large block of stock a week
after being told that the company may fold in two weeks is not the very
definition of "insider trading"?

I'm telling you that you have to know more of the facts before making
wild-eyed accusations. For example, suppose that he learned just before
the
sale that the company had just received a commitment for a large financing
on very favorable terms, and that when the financing was announced after
he
sold, the stock took a big jump up.

So you're saying that it's only "insider trading" if he makes a profit on
it???

Wow!

CM

"Dave" wrote in message
But hey, don't let legal technicalities like what the SEC had to prove get
in the way of a rant.

I never do Dave... I never do...

CM

Dave wrote:
On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 21:06:23 -0500, Jeff Morris
said:


We have to know more? Like the Enron style fake company manipulations?
Like the generous loans to officers forgiven? Like the stock sales at
40% discount? Oh yes, this is a "squeaky clean" operation!


Please try to focus a bit more, Jeff. The words "squeaky clean" are not
mine.

So? That was the comment I was addressing. Try to stay focused, Dave.

The only issue I addressed was the claim that a specific stock sale
violated the SEC's rules against insider trading.

You mean the violation he was admitted he was guilty of?

Other stock manipulations,
if they existed, have nothing to do with that issue. Forgiveness of loans to
officers, if they occurred, have nothing to do with that issue. Sales of
stock at less than the market price have nothing to do with that issue.

You're right. Those were different crimes that the SEC did not pursue.



Since you seem to know nothing about corporate finance, I will point out
that sales of stock in an offering that isn't registered under the
Securities Act of 1933, whether to insiders or venture capitalists, are
almost universally made at a substantial discount from market price, because
the purchaser can't sell the stock for at least a year (in limited amounts)
and, in the case of non-insiders, after two years in unlimited amounts.

Blah, blah blah. Are you referring to anything in specific or just
making jaxian rantings? BTW - the 40% discount affair occurred at the
same time shares were registered. But you wouldn't want reality to get
in your way, would you

Try to stay focused, Dave. Its pretty clear that you've just conceded
my original point and now you just babbling to make a diversion.

Dave wrote:
On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 15:48:52 -0500, Jeff Morris
said:


On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 21:06:23 -0500, Jeff Morris
said:



We have to know more? Like the Enron style fake company manipulations?
Like the generous loans to officers forgiven? Like the stock sales at
40% discount? Oh yes, this is a "squeaky clean" operation!


Please try to focus a bit more, Jeff. The words "squeaky clean" are not
mine.

So? That was the comment I was addressing. Try to stay focused, Dave.


No, Jeff, you're trying to pull a fast one here. What you were responding to
was my "We need to know more." Presumably that's why you quoted it. As I
pointed out, the words "squeaky clean" were not mine. If you intended to
respond to those words, I suggest you should have quoted the author of those
words, not me.

So you didn't really have any point at all in your first comment? That
figures.




The only issue I addressed was the claim that a specific stock sale
violated the SEC's rules against insider trading.

You mean the violation he was admitted he was guilty of?


So far as I know, the only violation admitted to was the late filing of Form
4. As I pointed out before, that's not part of the rules against insider
trading.


Yes he admitted to the failure to report the sale. He also admitted to
the sale itself. When the president of a company sells a large block of
stock a week after being informed that the company may have to shut down
in two weeks, its is considered by many "insider trading." It is no
surprise that you consider it a wise move.



Other stock manipulations,
if they existed, have nothing to do with that issue. Forgiveness of loans to
officers, if they occurred, have nothing to do with that issue. Sales of
stock at less than the market price have nothing to do with that issue.

You're right. Those were different crimes that the SEC did not pursue.


Neither forgiveness of loans to insiders nor sales of stock at less than
market are crimes, Jeff. In fact even if they were civil wrongs they aren't
even civil wrongs the SEC has any authority to pursue.


What's your point?



Since you seem to know nothing about corporate finance, I will point out
that sales of stock in an offering that isn't registered under the
Securities Act of 1933, whether to insiders or venture capitalists, are
almost universally made at a substantial discount from market price, because
the purchaser can't sell the stock for at least a year (in limited amounts)
and, in the case of non-insiders, after two years in unlimited amounts.

Blah, blah blah. Are you referring to anything in specific or just
making jaxian rantings? BTW - the 40% discount affair occurred at the
same time shares were registered. But you wouldn't want reality to get
in your way, would you


So you're claiming that the resale of the shares sold to management at a 40%
discount were registered under the Securities Act of 1933? I don't think
so. I presume they did have a class of securities registered under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, but that's entirely irrelevant to the
discussion of whether shares sold to management could be immediately resold.

Really, Jeff, the securities laws are fairly complicated. You ought not to
get into discussions in an area you know nothing about.

Why? Your only point has been that some of the sleazy practices Bush
engaged in can't be prosecuted under particular laws. Your argument has
been totally irrelevant to my original comment, which is that Bush is
far from being "squeaky clean." In fact, you've demonstrated exactly
the attitude that makes 49% of the country think that Republicans and
lawyers are crooks.

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message

In fact, you've demonstrated exactly the attitude that makes 49% of the
country think that Republicans and lawyers are crooks.

So what does that mean? That the other 51% think that Democrats and lawyers
are crooks? I guess that means 100% of us believe that lawyers are crooks.
At least we agree on something. G

Max

"Jeff Morris" wrote
In fact, you've demonstrated exactly the attitude that makes 49% of the
country think that Republicans and lawyers are crooks.


Somewhat of a mis-statement. 49% of voters think that Republicans &
lawyers are crooks. Actually more than that, a lot of people I know who
voted for President Bush think that Vice President Cheney is
*definitely* a crook and that Bush most probably is too, but swallowed
all the hate-spew against libby-rulls & faggots.

Maxprop wrote:
So what does that mean? That the other 51% think that Democrats and lawyers
are crooks? I guess that means 100% of us believe that lawyers are crooks.
At least we agree on something. G


Well, it's probably that a small percentage of lawyers don't think they
themselves are crooks. It's almost impossible to find anything that's
100% in this world.

DSK

Dave wrote:
Interesting observation when you consider that major funding for the Dems
comes from the trial lawyers.


Actually I'd be surprised if the split of trial lawyers money was very
uneven. Of course, trumpeting that those darn lawyers are funding those
darn libby-rull Democrats is a play-book call, isn't it.

But look at the facts.... you're a lawyer (or claim to be) and look at
*your* personal politics. Do *you* give money to the Democratic Party?

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message

But look at the facts.... you're a lawyer (or claim to be) and look at
*your* personal politics. Do *you* give money to the Democratic Party?

The implication was that lawyers are "crooks." No one said they are stupid.

Max

Actually I'd be surprised if the split of trial lawyers money was very
uneven. Of course, trumpeting that those darn lawyers are funding those
darn libby-rull Democrats is a play-book call, isn't it.


Dave wrote:
Be surprised.

At wha? Another pro-Bush/Cheney website whining about how those darn
ungodly libby-rulls are giving money to the Democrats (as opposed to
giving it to Karl Rove)? Maybe you didn't understand what I said:

"I'd be surprised if the split of trial lawyers money was very uneven"
meaning that they most likely give almost as much to the Republican Party.

DSK

Maxprop wrote:
The implication was that lawyers are "crooks." No one said they are stupid.


Meaning that Republicans... or at least prominent recently-elected
ones... are both?

DSK

Dave wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 12:01:34 -0500, Jeff Morris
said:


No, Jeff, you're trying to pull a fast one here. What you were responding to
was my "We need to know more." Presumably that's why you quoted it. As I
pointed out, the words "squeaky clean" were not mine. If you intended to
respond to those words, I suggest you should have quoted the author of those
words, not me.

So you didn't really have any point at all in your first comment? That
figures.


Not sure what "first comment" you're referring to, but the point of noting
we need to know more is that without the facts one is left, as you
apparently were, blindly accepting the characterization of folks with an ax
to grind, rather than being able to assess their claims.


The facts have been out for about 10 years and have never been disputed.





Yes he admitted to the failure to report the sale. He also admitted to
the sale itself. When the president of a company sells a large block of
stock a week after being informed that the company may have to shut down
in two weeks, its is considered by many "insider trading." It is no
surprise that you consider it a wise move.


There you go again--making up fairy tales about my views. "Considered by
many" is simply another way of saying characterized without much knowledge
or thought.

No. Its a way of saying "honest people would consider this dishonest."
I know that crooks all believe they are innocent even after convicted.
This was a simple case:

Accountant: "Your company is tanking!"
Bush: "Quick, sell my stock!"
Lawyer: "But that could be considered insider trading."
Bush: "Quick, sell my stock, but don't tell the SEC!"

Having dealt with the SEC for years, my experience tells me that
when they drop an investigation without starting an enforcement proceeding
it really means they don't have a case.

Having watched SEC investigations for a number of years its pretty clear
to me that if you're "connected" you don't get prosecuted. All it takes
is a thin veil of deniability to get off the hook. I was witness to a
case where the CEO was investigated for cashing in millions of options
the week before he announced a major delay in the company's primary
product. He swore he didn't know, but that would have meant he was the
last person in the company to find out.







Other stock manipulations,
if they existed, have nothing to do with that issue. Forgiveness of loans to
officers, if they occurred, have nothing to do with that issue. Sales of
stock at less than the market price have nothing to do with that issue.

You're right. Those were different crimes that the SEC did not pursue.





Neither forgiveness of loans to insiders nor sales of stock at less than
market are crimes, Jeff. In fact even if they were civil wrongs they aren't
even civil wrongs the SEC has any authority to pursue.


What's your point?


While market manipulation is a violation, neither forgiveness of loans to
officer nor sale of stock at a discount in a private placement is.

That's odd, on the front page of the Boston Globe Monday was a story
about how the SEC is investigating the timing of stock option grants
relative to good news. And these were long term vesting grants offered
at full value, not 40% discount.

Its true that many of the sleazy manipulations that Bush's company was
involved in were not strictly illegal. What's the point? Are you
claim that morality is the same as legality? Are you claiming that
morality is the same as avoiding conviction?



And
unless the market manipulation can be tied back to specific members of
management it says nothing whatever about the integrity of any member of
management. Manipulation often occurs in a thinly traded stock without the
knowledge or involvement of management. Again, ya gotta gave the facts
before empty-headedly slinging the mud stirred up by folk with an agenda.

blah blah blah. So his defense is that he was too stupid to see what
was going on around him? Are you saying that a bunch of crooks placed
the President's son in this position because they knew he'd never figure
it out?




Your suggestion was that the SEC somehow did Bush an undeserved favor.
That's just plain silly when you're talking about things that (a) aren't a
violation of law, or (b) aren't within the scope of the SEC's power.


Silly isn't the right word, Dave.




Really, Jeff, the securities laws are fairly complicated. You ought not to
get into discussions in an area you know nothing about.

Why? Your only point has been that some of the sleazy practices Bush
engaged in can't be prosecuted under particular laws. Your argument has
been totally irrelevant to my original comment, which is that Bush is
far from being "squeaky clean." In fact, you've demonstrated exactly
the attitude that makes 49% of the country think that Republicans and
lawyers are crooks.


No. My point is, not to put too fine a point on it, that you don't know what
you're talking about in this area, and your rants on the topic have zero
credibility.

I never claimed to know the law. In fact, I never made any claim as to
the legality of the actions or what laws might have been broken. You
tried to re-cast the discussion into a legal argument so you can show
off your modest knowledge in that area.

I never claimed that Bush should or could be prosecuted under any
particular law. On the contrary, you've been claiming that because Bush
hasn't been convicted he must be innocent. While is is legally true, it
is fat from proving he is "squeaky clean." What you've been doing is
the same as the Enron executives who claim they have done nothing illegal.

Anyone who wants to consider the fact and allegations should check out:
http://www.buzzflash.com/perspectives/bush_harken.html

Dave wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 20:35:13 -0500, DSK said:


Somewhat of a mis-statement. 49% of voters think that Republicans &
lawyers are crooks.


Interesting observation when you consider that major funding for the Dems
comes from the trial lawyers.

While I certainly wouldn't take the trial lawyers side in all issues, it
is clear that they are one of the major forces that protect us from
corporate abuse.

Dave wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 13:23:28 -0500, DSK said:


Actually I'd be surprised if the split of trial lawyers money was very
uneven. Of course, trumpeting that those darn lawyers are funding those
darn libby-rull Democrats is a play-book call, isn't it.


Be surprised. Actually, I'm surprised you didn't know that the Dems have
practically become a subsidiary of the ATLA.

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?Ind=K01


So this means that the Republicans are a subsidiary of the energy
companies? Gee, what a surprise!


http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?ind=E

Jeff Morris wrote:
Dave wrote:

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 20:35:13 -0500, DSK said:


Somewhat of a mis-statement. 49% of voters think that Republicans &
lawyers are crooks.



Interesting observation when you consider that major funding for the Dems
comes from the trial lawyers.

While I certainly wouldn't take the trial lawyers side in all issues, it
is clear that they are one of the major forces that protect us from
corporate abuse.

Do pardon my naiveté, but don't just as many "trial" lawyers work for the Corporations, defending them from the "trial" lawyers who are protecting
"us" from abuse by the aforesaid corporations? If so which way do political contributions from these "Corporate trial" lawyers go?

Cheers
Marty

Dave wrote:
One can only reach that conclusion of he deliberately blinds himself to the
facts.

Do a Google search on "'trial lawyers' democrats contributions and look
through the results.

That's only meaningful *if* an overall & accurate comparison is made to
their contributions to the Republican Party.

I grant you that the Republicans have made a huge play out of trial
lawyers contributions to Dems... proves nothing, it's just advertising.

Next, you'll be claiming that all the "Swift Boat Veterans for _Truth_"
malarkey is factual, like Maxprop used to.

Of course, looking for actual facts makes me "blind" in your opinion...

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message

Maxprop wrote:
The implication was that lawyers are "crooks." No one said they are
stupid.


Meaning that Republicans... or at least prominent recently-elected ones...
are both?

Well, we are talking lawyers and politicians here, no?

Max

"Dave" wrote in message

In some cases yes, but in most cases no. 30 years ago I would have agreed
with you. But today there is a large "law suit industry" that has little
to
do with protecting anybody but the pockets of strike suit lawyers.

Well I put my full trust into my legal firm.... Dewey, Suem & Howe.
They is one passel'o'mean Weasels alright!...

CM

Dave wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 09:11:01 -0500, Jeff Morris
said:


While market manipulation is a violation, neither forgiveness of loans to
officer nor sale of stock at a discount in a private placement is.

That's odd, on the front page of the Boston Globe Monday was a story
about how the SEC is investigating the timing of stock option grants
relative to good news. And these were long term vesting grants offered
at full value, not 40% discount.


You're continuing to demonstrate your ignorance of the area, Jeff. Most
stock options are granted under incentive stock option plans that for tax
reasons require the option price to be the market price on the date of the
grant, that don't allow exercise for some period of time, and that have
registration statements in effect covering resales. This is a totally
different animal from purchase of unregistered stock in an unregistered
offering, where the purchaser puts up his money immediately, is at risk from
day 1 and can't resell for at least a year. In those transactions there is
nearly always a significant discount to market.


You continue to miss the point that I'm not talking about legalities,
but whether these activities fall under "squeaky clean." Forgiven loans
and generous option plans and discounted stock sales are a way healthy
companies reward performance and promote loyalty. Harken never made
money for its stockholders, only for its executives. The stock that
Bush received at a 40% discount in '89 was what he dumped immediately
after being told of the company's deteriorating financial condition in
June '90. It does not appear there was any restriction on its sale then.

Dave wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 12:23:06 -0500, Jeff Morris
said:


The stock that
Bush received at a 40% discount in '89 was what he dumped immediately
after being told of the company's deteriorating financial condition in
June '90. It does not appear there was any restriction on its sale then.


It seems like you're agreeing with me


If he bought it from the issuer other than in a public offering, it would be
"restricted securities" and could not be sold into the market without
registration for at least a year after he bought it.

I think it was less then a year - it was certainly under 1.5 years.
However, I think the company may have gone public during the year, and
the stock might have been converted to a liquid form.

After a year it could
be sold into the market in amounts not exceeding 1% of the outstanding
shares in any 3 month period, and then only if he did not know of any
material information that hadn't been publicly disclosed.

You mean like the company may have to shut down in a week?

After two years
(IIRC it was 3 years in 1990) it could be sold into the market in unlimited
amounts only after he had not been an officer or director for at least 90
days. Otherwise he'd be limited to the 1%.

Again, I'm not sure but I think it was over 1%.


If the stock was sold in violation of these rules, the buyers of the stock
would have been entitled to get their money back regardless of whether the
SEC did anything about it.


Perhaps the buyer had reasons not to complain.

Of course he could sell it at any time to an individual in a private
transaction (as opposed to into the market).

I assume it was such a sale - one person, a Texan I think, was
identified as the buyer.

That sale would generally be at
a discount to market because the buyer would be locked up for a period of
time.

True, but in the case it appears he paid a hefty premium.


If the were today instead of 14 years ago I could tell just what the story
is because the filings would be on the SEC's EDGAR site. But 1990 is
pre-EDGAR.

You're assuming all of the appropriate papers were filed with the SEC.

Dave wrote:
One can only reach that conclusion of he deliberately blinds himself to the
facts.


By "facts" of course you mean Republican pro-Bush/Cheney propaganda.


Do a Google search on "'trial lawyers' democrats contributions and look
through the results.

Why bother? You've shown in the past that you cannot accept any
reasonable standard of proof, and regard the most blatantly slanted
and/or false pro-Bush/Cheney malarkey as Gospel.

.. I challenge you to find a single report that
contradicts the propositions that the trial lawyers are among the highest
contributors to Democrats

What about unions and pharmaceutical companies? Oh, you mean "other than
that."


.. and that contributions by trial lawyers to
Democrats far exceed their contributions to Republicans.


Let's see...

You're in the position of insisting that your bull****.... inspired by
paid political advertising... is "truth" and challenging me to prove
otherwise, whereas you have presented no proof yourself... other than
the bull**** advertising shills.

You got it backwards. Go peddle your bull**** to somebody else.

DSK

Dave wrote:
Find a single report from a source you trust contradicting the
proposition that trial lawyer are among the highest contributors to the
Dems.

How about just lawyers and law firms in general: http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?ind=K01

Looks like your colleagues generally prefer the Dems? Why is that?

Cheers
Marty

Dave wrote:

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 12:33:15 -0500, Martin Baxter said:


How about just lawyers and law firms in general: http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?ind=K01

Looks like your colleagues generally prefer the Dems? Why is that?


Who's protecting their pocketbooks?


Are you a psychiatrist?

Cheers
Marty

Dave wrote:

... I repeat the challenge. Don't rely on the sources I
cite. Find a single report from a source you trust contradicting the
proposition that trial lawyer are among the highest contributors to the
Dems.


Now you're backpedaling again. The issue is not how much "trial lawyers"
give to the Democratic Party but how much *more* they give to that party
than to the Republicans.

I take it that you are losing confidence in your propaganda.

DSK

May I make a suggestion, Dave?

Why continue to argue with a loser like DSK who demonstrates
time and time again that he has his own set of 'facts' which he
believes in contrary to any and all evidence to the contrary.

Arguing with a loser like DSK only results in his ridiculous
positions gaining some credibility by association in treating with
you and your, superior and rational positions.

The way to talk to a liberal is to state only the facts. Stating
the most pertinent facts first is often the end of the discussion.

In Doug's case, as in the case of most liberals, the most pertinent
fact is DSK is a loser and his views are wrong and have been
rejected by the American electorate.

CN


"Dave" wrote in message ...
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 12:20:56 -0500, DSK said:

... I repeat the challenge. Don't rely on the sources I
cite. Find a single report from a source you trust contradicting the
proposition that trial lawyer are among the highest contributors to the
Dems.


Now you're backpedaling again. The issue is not how much "trial lawyers"
give to the Democratic Party but how much *more* they give to that party
than to the Republicans.

I take it that you are losing confidence in your propaganda.

You take it wrong in two respects. First I remain confident that trial
lawyers are among the largest contributors to the Dems, and are not among
the largest contributors to the Republicans. Second in labeling my sources
"propaganda." In fact I've read it in numerous places, and have invited you
to independently verify that conclusion or find contrary evidence--an
invitation you have not taken up. Instead, you've now added a claim that
trial lawyers are among the largest contributors to the Republicans. Have
you any authority at all for that proposition? What is it, because I haven't
been able to locate it. In fact Martin points us to a source indicating that
73% of all contributions by lawyers and law firms in the 2004 election cycle
went to Democrats. My 35 years practice tells me that lawyers who practice
corporate law or intellectual property law are more likely to be Republican
than are trial lawyers. Yet even when their contributions are thrown in they
are far outweighed by the big contributions from ATLA's PAC and the
individual contributions from members of the tort and class action bars.

"Capt. Neal®" wrote in message

May I make a suggestion, Dave?

Why continue to argue with a loser like DSK who demonstrates
time and time again that he has his own set of 'facts' which he
believes in contrary to any and all evidence to the contrary.

Arguing with a loser like DSK only results in his ridiculous
positions gaining some credibility by association in treating with
you and your, superior and rational positions.

The way to talk to a liberal is to state only the facts. Stating
the most pertinent facts first is often the end of the discussion.

In Doug's case, as in the case of most liberals, the most pertinent
fact is DSK is a loser and his views are wrong and have been
rejected by the American electorate.

Oh now you've done it. You've ****ed Dougie off, calling him a liberal.

Of course you're absolutely, 100% accurate. But let's not let truth
obfuscate DSK's ongoing tantrum, contending that he is a conservative.

Max