| Author |
Message |
Bill Sawyer (Wsawyer)
Member
Username: Wsawyer
Post Number: 375
Registered: 2-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 31, 2002 - 10:30 am: | |
Maybe Bill Clinton should sleep with Mike Tyson so that we can wrap up two threads at once. |
arthur chambers (Art355)
Member
Username: Art355
Post Number: 567
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 31, 2002 - 10:25 am: | |
As a final note on this issue: The government passed a tort reform bill in 95 (sponsored by the republicans) which was passed over Clinton's veto. That bill greatly restricted the rights of investors to sue accountants, CEOs, and other management when fraud was committed or alleged by those folks. As a direct result of that legislation, suits against public entitle were drastically reduced.
I guess what I'm saying is that while the Clinton bashers are somewhat forgetful about how we got were we are, they are forgetting the republican's complicity in our current situation. As for the fraud which we have now seen, are we really going to allow the government, and its employees, who as a group are probably the most incompetent group of individuals around, to attempt to enforce sophisticated regulations, when we could get people (trial lawyers) to do this for no cost to us? Seems to me the only reason not to go back where we were is that friends of the government (large business) are afraid of the consequences, and their friends are protecting them? IMHO
Art |
David White (Dwhite)
New member
Username: Dwhite
Post Number: 44
Registered: 7-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 30, 2002 - 1:49 pm: | |
And everytime we had a Clinton in the bush, things got a little hairy. |
Mitchell L. Davidson (Jussumfastgi)
Junior Member
Username: Jussumfastgi
Post Number: 172
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 30, 2002 - 11:49 am: | |
Yes, it is obvious that Bush caused the dot com bust and the fall of 500x PE ratios, the attacks of 9/11 and the accounting scandals. Now that we have agreed on that, can we move on? |
Ken (Allyn)
Member
Username: Allyn
Post Number: 486
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 30, 2002 - 11:30 am: | |
Everytime we get a Bush in office the economy goes to hell in a handbasket and we're fighting some halfassed war. At least I got my Bush tax rebate of $600. I couldn't decide if I should go to the casnio or buy a handgun. |
Jack (Gilles27)
Member
Username: Gilles27
Post Number: 497
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Monday, July 29, 2002 - 10:29 pm: | |
Mitchell, LOL. I clicked on your link but didn't get anywhere. (sigh) I was really looking forward to logging onto www.whydoiargue... |
Kenneth R. Granata, Jr. (Granat)
New member
Username: Granat
Post Number: 2
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Monday, July 29, 2002 - 4:38 pm: | |
I thought this was about Ferrari. Clinton is what he is, and so is his wife. They are what they are. Please get off this subject and stick to Ferrari. Thanks |
Mitchell L. Davidson (Jussumfastgi)
Junior Member
Username: Jussumfastgi
Post Number: 153
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Monday, July 29, 2002 - 10:19 am: | |
IMHO, bla bla bla who cares?
I thought I had types in www.ferrarichat.com. I must have accidentally clicked over to www.WhydoIArgueWithPeopleWhoWillNeverSeeMyPointOfView.com. Silly me. |
Ernesto (T88power)
Member
Username: T88power
Post Number: 519
Registered: 2-2001
| | Posted on Monday, July 29, 2002 - 9:51 am: | |
The bottom line is that the financial, economic, and terrorism problems we now face were allowed to grow during the Clinton Administration, during which time nothing was done to counteract signs of certain future events. Attacks of terror on US embassy and battleship went unchecked, corporate accountability went unchecked, etc etc. I could go on and on.
IMHO, Mr. Clinton was an embarrasment to this country and to the office he held. Everywhere he went, allegations of impropriety followed. That is not a good sign.
Ernesto |
arthur chambers (Art355)
Member
Username: Art355
Post Number: 552
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Monday, July 29, 2002 - 9:24 am: | |
Ross:
Check your history. A CEO accountability bill was proposed by Clinton in the middle 90s, but not passed by the House, and he also proposed that accounting firms not be allowed to supply consulting services to those companies that they audit, again not passed by the House. Additionally, Clinton asked for the equivelent of the Homeland security bill, but it was defeated by a group of Republicans, lead by Ashcroft (In this instance I am sorry to say that Ashcroft was right). Those are facts which would tend to make one believe that Clinton did indeed make an attempt to reign in the business people, but given the composition of the government, it proved impossible.
Art |
ross koller (Ross)
Junior Member
Username: Ross
Post Number: 204
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Monday, July 29, 2002 - 8:52 am: | |
art, so what you are saying is that during the late 90's when most of the current financial shenanigans were being hatched, bush should have been telling business people to do the right thing so that when he won the election years later he wouldn't be blamed for their past transgressions ? laughable. am surprised by your assertion given your profile which would indicate that you are an intelligent and thinking man. |
arthur chambers (Art355)
Member
Username: Art355
Post Number: 550
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, July 28, 2002 - 9:00 pm: | |
Tenney:
You'd be right, but there is the issue of governmental immunity. Since our legal system started out with the King, he was immune from suit, but we have enacted various governmental tort liability laws, but unless there is a specific immunity waiver, you can't sue the government. An example: a friend of mine represented the widow of an F16 pilot (you may have seen this on 60 minutes) alleging that the manufacturer of the plane didn't provide adequate wiring and that caused the plane to crash. The Supreme Court held that even though the defect had been proven, since the manufactuer was a government contractor they were immune from suit.
The issue of the govenment liability for tobacco is interesting, but you have it backwards. The government provided immunity (at least in California) for the tobacco industry. They were immune from suit because they got the legislature (Willie Brown, current mayor of SF sponsored the legislation) to provide the immunity from suit. This has been fixed, but a little late.
Last note: Coffee. I know a little about that case. Things you might not know: This was the 20th case against McDonalds. Issue was: they were serving 180 degree coffee at the drive up window. Because of the prior cases, they knew that if the coffee was spilled while driving, the person would get 3rd degree burns. They had been asked to abide by the industry standard of 140 degrees, which would not produce that serious injury, but refused. The lady in question sustained 3rd degree burns, and had 300k in medical bills. I heard that the jury decided that they needed to award enough to make them change their ways. 100 mil was what they decided upon. Apparently worked, McDonalds no longer makes coffee at 180 degrees, now uses the lower number, and guess what? no injuries. System worked in my opinion. Beware of what you read in the paper, sometimes it isn't always the complete truth.
Art |
Jack (Gilles27)
Member
Username: Gilles27
Post Number: 493
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, July 28, 2002 - 8:02 pm: | |
I think Clinton rewrote the book on wielding executive clout for bestowing favors on his acquaintances. |
Tenney (Tenney)
Junior Member
Username: Tenney
Post Number: 193
Registered: 2-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, July 28, 2002 - 7:32 pm: | |
Cool, Art. So now seems as good a time as any to spill some hot McDonald's coffee.
Additionally, I'm no legal guy (as though you hadn't noticed), but doesn't the U.S. Gov. already have sort of an over-riding get out of jail free card? If not, wouldn't any "good" lawyer who goes where the cash is forgo a case against the tobacco companies and target, instead, the larger (and wealthier) institution that permits the sale of tobacco? |
arthur chambers (Art355)
Member
Username: Art355
Post Number: 548
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, July 28, 2002 - 6:42 pm: | |
Tenney:
Lawyers almost always do better when the economy takes a down turn. Given what I do, i.e., Plaintiff's employment law primarily, this is a great time becaus juries are less inclined to believe the corporation when suit is brought, and more inclined to award punitive damages when their behavior warrants it.
Dan:
Letting your emotions effect your reasoning is probably not a good course of action. Just remember that Bill Clinton was very good to the legal profession. Bush on the other hand, would impose a corporte get out of jail free card for his friends, making litigation against those who have his ear difficult, if not impossible. He has been after the trial lawyers for years, in what I perceive is a plan designed to allow his friends to escape the consequences of their behavior. IMHO
Art |
Don Norton (Litig8r)
Junior Member
Username: Litig8r
Post Number: 88
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, July 28, 2002 - 5:32 pm: | |
The economy has not gone from great to poor under Bush. The only thing that has declined is the market, and that's due to it being overinflated in the 90's by companies with poor or no fundamentals (i.e. all the dot coms). Clinton had zero to do with that.
Interest rates are low. There is no inflation. Unemployment is low and the economy is growing at a 3+% annual clip. Once the market readjusts and goes back down to a reasonable level which is supported by strong fundamentals, that will stabilize as well.
I despise Bill Clinton. Ronald Reagan wouldn't even take his suit jacket off in the oval office because he had so much respect for the office. Contrast that with Clinton. A man without a moral compass whatsoever. What a scumbag. |
Tenney (Tenney)
Junior Member
Username: Tenney
Post Number: 192
Registered: 2-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, July 28, 2002 - 3:55 pm: | |
Economically, wouldn't be suprised if we're worse off at the end of Bush's term, Art. Wouldn't blame him entirely, though. Just as I wouldn't give Bill Clinton a ton of cred for the economic boom that took place during his term(s). Bill Gates, maybe, not Bill Clinton.
Actual blame (credit?) may fall in the hands of those (us?) who overreact to perceived rises and declines in market conditions.
And so with no sweeping get-rich-quick schemes in the immediate offing, more folks may have to work for a living. And so a less inflated (artificially or otherwise) economic picture might be the future for a bit.
Worried? Next time you're in traffic, glance around at all the folks who'll be in the market for TVs, toilet paper and Twinkies and rest assured things will be okay in the future.
Near-term upside? Litigation might grow in popularity as a means to relatively effortless cash for many, which may serve to benefit some of our on-site legal-types (Will Dino Frank soon helm a front-engined 12 as Enzo would have wished?).
No expert here, but suspect Irag might be swayed to capitulate with far fewer than 20k hometeam casualties.
|
arthur chambers (Art355)
Member
Username: Art355
Post Number: 547
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, July 28, 2002 - 2:45 pm: | |
Guys:
Bush has been in office for almost two years. The economy has gone from great to poor. Let's can the double talk, his policies, i.e., the tax cut, the restructuring of the way the US government spends its dough are directly responsible for what has occurred. I am told that one major factor in the market decline is the fear the Europeans have about Mr. Bush, and they have been withdrawing their investments in the US. Now Bush is thinking about starting another war in Iraq and I'm told that my government thinks that 20k casualties are acceptable. The end result will be the end result, I still think we will be a lot worse off when Bush's 1st term is over. All we have to do is wait and see what the results of Bush's governance are. IMHO
Art |
Tenney (Tenney)
Junior Member
Username: Tenney
Post Number: 190
Registered: 2-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, July 28, 2002 - 11:18 am: | |
Metaphorically speaking, think of the U.S. as an elevator. Now lets say the elevator is empty except for Clinton. Clinton greases one in the elevator and steps out. Bush steps in. At the next floor, Art steps in with Mr. Bush.
While I don't necessarily agree with Art's take re: current/prior administrations, I can see how he arrived at it. |
Edward Gault (Irfgt)
Intermediate Member
Username: Irfgt
Post Number: 1643
Registered: 2-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, July 28, 2002 - 8:40 am: | |
I could not agree more. I just hope this Fast Track that current President just got has does not destroy any more of our Textile jobs. |
Ernesto (T88power)
Member
Username: T88power
Post Number: 518
Registered: 2-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, July 28, 2002 - 8:11 am: | |
Since this turned into a political discussion: regarding our current economic condition, we are here precisely because of President Clinton's short-term and self-serving policies during his administration. The lax way he handled (read: ignored) acts of terrorism against our country also has a lot to do with out current state of affairs.
Mr. Clinton did more damage than good to our country, on many many levels including social, economic, national defense, etc etc. JUST MHU.
Ernesto
|
bruce wellington (Bws88tr)
Member
Username: Bws88tr
Post Number: 595
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, July 27, 2002 - 6:50 pm: | |
tom
maybe art has "fish-like" license plate holders
regrds,
bruce |
TomD (Tifosi)
Intermediate Member
Username: Tifosi
Post Number: 1112
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Friday, July 26, 2002 - 10:11 am: | |
here we go............. we have not had one of these in a while |
arthur chambers (Art355)
Member
Username: Art355
Post Number: 545
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Friday, July 26, 2002 - 9:43 am: | |
Dave:
I do trial work, tried maybe 200 cases over the years. In each and every one of those, to be best of my recollection, someone perjuried themselves (hopefully none of my clients). Not one of them was ever prosecuted, not one, and there were instances where the perjury was about as obvious as can be. FACT: men lie about their promiscuity, done every day. I know of no such prosectuion for that "crime" other than the impeachment of Bill Clinton. Clinton was impeached, but not convicted and we both know it was political. Name one president who has not had a scandal since Nixon. While ideals are great, they are frequently not met by anyone, whatever their social position. Even the current president has allegations of impropriety looming ahead for him in the allegations of insider trading in addition to his youthful drunkeness, etc.
It's not the government's job to establish our morals. Its our job. The government's job as I see it is to make sure that we can go about our business and establish whatever way of life we can earn. When we start turning the government into the moral leader we end up with a fractious society because not all of us have the same values and morals.
If a government allows its citizens to prosper and doesn't get in the way of its citizens to do that, and doesn't allow portions of its citizens to take advantage of other citizens, it has done a good job. When a government allows its ideology to get in the way of allowing its citizens to go about their lives, that is bad government. Our current government is the latter, our last government was the former, and we can see for ourselves the difference.
If I was a betting man, I would bet that at the conclusion of Bush's presidency, we will have a 7000 or lower DOW, interest rates (prime) above 8%, and much higher unemployment. All as a direct result of this governments' policies. IMHO
Art |
Jack (Gilles27)
Member
Username: Gilles27
Post Number: 489
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, July 25, 2002 - 7:55 pm: | |
Art, I have to partially disagree with your comments. (First of all, it's a sad statement that these days we even have to use a "thief" analogy when talking about our presidents, but so be it). I refrain from making moral judgements when the people in question are my peers. However, our elected leaders should possess and display the ethics that serve as an example for the public. Sure, that sounds idealistic, but if we don't see it at the top, it's hard to expect it among the masses. It's dangerous when we begin to accept compromised morals because of our own gain. The end justified the means. The expression I like is "boiling a toad". If you're trying to boil a toad, don't throw it into a pot of hot water--he'll jump right out. Rather, put him in cooler water and slowly turn up the heat. Basically a metaphor for how, over time, we as a society accept lower standards of behavior. |
Dave (Maranelloman)
Member
Username: Maranelloman
Post Number: 272
Registered: 1-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, July 25, 2002 - 7:36 pm: | |
Art, you are correct, IMO, to a point. But remember: he was impeached (and, yes he WAS impeached) for PERJURY, which is a felony, and not for not having "sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky"...which, while stupid, immoral, and a needless breach of national security, is not. And, I think it's great that other hypocrites of Slick Willie's ilk, Democrat and Republican, couldn't stand the heat and got out of the kitchen. Our elected "leaders" should be people to whom we look up. Not down. |
Terry Springer (Tspringer)
Junior Member
Username: Tspringer
Post Number: 159
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, July 25, 2002 - 7:25 pm: | |
Funny comment about lawyers being tough to collect from. Doing mortgages, I see folks intimate financials and credit history dailey. The "Three P"'s are famous in our business: Physicians, Preachers and Policemen. With frightening regularity people in these 3 occupations have horrible credit. So much so that its funny. Physicians usually have tons of money but are horrible about keeping up with it and thus dont pay bills on time. Preachers I guess figure God will make the payments or divine intervention will help and Policemen just figure they ARE the law and thus dont have to make payments... |
arthur chambers (Art355)
Member
Username: Art355
Post Number: 544
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, July 25, 2002 - 7:03 pm: | |
There is an old adage: I'll take a smart thief over an incompetent every time.
A smart thief will always leave you with something, while an incompetent will lose it all. Well we had a smart thief and now we've got the incompetent. Guess what: we're in the shitter. The Who had it right with their song: Won't get fooled again.
When we stop making moral judgements on others, and start looking at the world rationally, Mr. & Mrs. Clinton had a little to do with making those 8 years good ones. I'm certainly not one to make moral judgments on others, and I'm certain that we all have some dirt in our past. An interesting point, when the Democrats fought back over the impeachment, several of the self righteous congressmen ended up resigning over their past.
The guage of a politican's value is how well we live, not how we moralize his or her behavior. IMHO
Art |
Bill Steele (Glassman)
Junior Member
Username: Glassman
Post Number: 57
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, July 25, 2002 - 6:28 pm: | |
Edward,
I wonder how many of us would close our ears if we got a tip that would save our financial asses?
I admire Martha, and really wish she was my mom!
Wait a minute, how old is she. HMMMM |
Dr Tommy Cosgrove (Vwalfa4re)
Junior Member
Username: Vwalfa4re
Post Number: 195
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, July 25, 2002 - 6:27 pm: | |
The only way that could be more of a convenience marrage is if it had "7-11" on it. |
Edward Gault (Irfgt)
Intermediate Member
Username: Irfgt
Post Number: 1609
Registered: 2-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, July 25, 2002 - 5:41 pm: | |
I can't believe anyone elected her to any office. She should be in jail with Martha Stewart for her stock "Deals". |
Dave (Maranelloman)
Member
Username: Maranelloman
Post Number: 271
Registered: 1-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, July 25, 2002 - 5:04 pm: | |
Heck, I hear that, at times, they're fighting over the same women. Not that there's anything wrong with that, mind you... |
Jack (Gilles27)
Member
Username: Gilles27
Post Number: 486
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, July 25, 2002 - 4:38 pm: | |
Of course Hillary doesn't care. She "switched teams". |
Dave (Maranelloman)
Member
Username: Maranelloman
Post Number: 270
Registered: 1-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, July 25, 2002 - 4:38 pm: | |
...she gets all her shots, and wears a full body condom (for her protection, not his). Arrgh: just seeing that scumbag's name in print makes my blood boil. (I was speaking of him, but his wife is running a close second) |
bruce wellington (Bws88tr)
Member
Username: Bws88tr
Post Number: 594
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, July 25, 2002 - 12:48 pm: | |
sorry... chinese... |
bruce wellington (Bws88tr)
Member
Username: Bws88tr
Post Number: 593
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, July 25, 2002 - 12:47 pm: | |
make sure bill secures a great "chines dry cleaning store" |
DHutchison (Hutch308)
Junior Member
Username: Hutch308
Post Number: 60
Registered: 1-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, July 25, 2002 - 12:46 pm: | |
Some unlucky pool contractor got the job to build Bill + Hillary's pool at their casa in Chappaqua. It was not us, but we're trying to find out which fly-by-night company got it. Chappaqua only releases the homeowners names with building permits issued, and not the contractor's name. Doing any contracting work for attorneys is risky when it comes time to get paid. Nothing against attorneys, but they are very tricky to deal with, and love to argue while withholding $$$. |
Rob Lay (Rob328gts)
Board Administrator
Username: Rob328gts
Post Number: 1903
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Thursday, July 25, 2002 - 12:44 pm: | |
Whatever arrangement they have is not for us to understand. They can do whatever they want. |
Tim N (Timn88)
Intermediate Member
Username: Timn88
Post Number: 1324
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, July 25, 2002 - 12:20 pm: | |
I was just watching the news and heard the most rediculous thing. Apparently Hillary doesnt care who he sleeps with as long as its outside the US and he doesnt get caught by the press. This doesnt make sense to me either. |