In article <1ga73va.5oc3dk38qchxN%[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Rick Gibson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Don't really believe that but it is one of the best reasons for charging her
> > I can think of.
>
> Another "rule of law" conservative.
>
>
... and another humorless liberal.
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > How come this stuff is only funny whne it's FROM a conservative?
> >
> > Liberals respond like that and 68 Cons jump on them for being mean.
> >
> > Charlie Self
> > "Facts are stubborn, but statistics are more pliable." Mark Twain
> >
> > http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/myhomepage/business.html
>
>
> Ever notice how politics can make the most agreeing bunch of people turn
on
> each other. Perhaps if there were no parties and those that governed were
> selected like jurors.
>
>
Ayup. Only thing worst is religion.
D. Mo
Mark & Juanita asks:
>
>> > Don't really believe that but it is one of the best reasons for charging
>her
>> > I can think of.
>>
>> Another "rule of law" conservative.
>>
>>
>
>... and another humorless liberal.
How come this stuff is only funny whne it's FROM a conservative?
Liberals respond like that and 68 Cons jump on them for being mean.
Charlie Self
"Facts are stubborn, but statistics are more pliable." Mark Twain
http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/myhomepage/business.html
On Sat, 6 Mar 2004 16:04:47 -0500, "KYHighlander"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Because the Libs remind us too much of the Bolsheviks
and the right wing acts more and more like the nazis...
Bridger writes:
>
>On Sat, 6 Mar 2004 16:04:47 -0500, "KYHighlander"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Because the Libs remind us too much of the Bolsheviks
>
>
>and the right wing acts more and more like the nazis...
Well, the trains WILL run on time.
Charlie Self
"Facts are stubborn, but statistics are more pliable." Mark Twain
http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/myhomepage/business.html
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> How come this stuff is only funny whne it's FROM a conservative?
>
> Liberals respond like that and 68 Cons jump on them for being mean.
>
> Charlie Self
> "Facts are stubborn, but statistics are more pliable." Mark Twain
>
> http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/myhomepage/business.html
Ever notice how politics can make the most agreeing bunch of people turn on
each other. Perhaps if there were no parties and those that governed were
selected like jurors.
Because the Libs remind us too much of the Bolsheviks
--
http://users.adelphia.net/~kyhighland
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Mark & Juanita asks:
>
> >
> >> > Don't really believe that but it is one of the best reasons for
charging
> >her
> >> > I can think of.
> >>
> >> Another "rule of law" conservative.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >... and another humorless liberal.
>
> How come this stuff is only funny whne it's FROM a conservative?
>
> Liberals respond like that and 68 Cons jump on them for being mean.
>
> Charlie Self
> "Facts are stubborn, but statistics are more pliable." Mark Twain
>
> http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/myhomepage/business.html
KYHighlander babbles:
>Because the Libs remind us too much of the Bolsheviks
>
>--
>
>http://users.adelphia.net/~kyhighland
>
>
>"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> Mark & Juanita asks:
>>
>> >
>> >> > Don't really believe that but it is one of the best reasons for
>charging
>> >her
>> >> > I can think of.
>> >>
>> >> Another "rule of law" conservative.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >... and another humorless liberal.
>>
>> How come this stuff is only funny whne it's FROM a conservative?
>>
>> Liberals respond like that and 68 Cons jump on them for being mean.
Really? Pitiful response. Makes me ashamed to admit my father was from
Kentucky.
Charlie Self
"Facts are stubborn, but statistics are more pliable." Mark Twain
http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/myhomepage/business.html
Look at this link cencerning bush and lay
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/bushlay1.html
KYHighlander <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Because the Libs remind us too much of the Bolsheviks
>
> --
>
> http://users.adelphia.net/~kyhighland
>
>
> "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Mark & Juanita asks:
> >
> > >
> > >> > Don't really believe that but it is one of the best reasons for
> charging
> > >her
> > >> > I can think of.
> > >>
> > >> Another "rule of law" conservative.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >... and another humorless liberal.
> >
> > How come this stuff is only funny whne it's FROM a conservative?
> >
> > Liberals respond like that and 68 Cons jump on them for being mean.
> >
> > Charlie Self
> > "Facts are stubborn, but statistics are more pliable." Mark Twain
> >
> > http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/myhomepage/business.html
>
>
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Bay Area Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > My wife and I were just talking about Martha. We surmise she will be
> > given a sentence of 500 hours of community service: demonstrating how to
> > make a bed with hospital corners.
>
>
> I have a better idea. Sentence her to single handedly redecorate the
whole
> prison.
>
>
>
Wow what a great Idea. That would make for a more humane incarceration of
the rest of the prison population. It's a good thing.
D. Mo
> sound good to me, just because she is so arrogant...and rich <g>. Which
> is why they brought charges anyway,
She's being charged because she donated to democrats including hillary
clinton. The charges were such a reach that even business magazines had
articles on how dangerous and biased the prosecutions were.
The best part was that she was charged for declaring her innocence. If
she went down for that one, it will be a first.
Ken lay is livin' large though.
KYHighlander <[email protected]> wrote:
> Bullshit
You can even hear it from the business community. Its a typical modern
prosecution. Get a witness to flip, drop original counts and charge her
for essentially what was cooperation.
The sad truth is that there really isn't an alternative to suggest.
Rick Gibson <[email protected]> wrote:
> Don't really believe that but it is one of the best reasons for charging her
> I can think of.
Another "rule of law" conservative.
p_j responds:
>Rick Gibson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Don't really believe that but it is one of the best reasons for charging
>her
>> I can think of.
>
>Another "rule of law" conservative.
He may be a member of "Assholes of The World United".
Charlie Self
"Facts are stubborn, but statistics are more pliable." Mark Twain
http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/myhomepage/business.html
todd <[email protected]> wrote:
> Cmon...I thought this is what you libs like...rich people getting their
> comeuppance.
The point is that it isn't comeuppance, its politics.
> Oh, you mean rich people actually give jobs to regular people?
> Someone should alert the DNC.
You sound like you listen to Limbaugh and Hannity et al.
For a complete change, here is one of my favorite liberals, Thomas
Jefferson in his first inaugural:
"Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion,
religious or political; freedom of religion; freedom of the press, and
freedom of person under the protection of habeous corpus, and trial by
juries impartially selected. These principles form the bright
constellation which has gone before us and guided our steps through an
age of revolution and reformation. The wisdom of sages and blood of our
heroes have devoted to their attainment. They should be the creed of our
political faith, the text of civil instruction, the touchstone by which
to try the services of those we trust; and should we wander from them in
moments of error or of alarm, let us hasten to retrace our steps and to
regain the road which alone leads to peace, liberty, and safety."
I think he explains it well here:
"There is... an artificial aristocracy founded on wealth and birth,
without either virtue or talents... The artificial aristocracy is a
mischevious ingredient in government, and provision should be made to
prevent its ascendency."
Frank Ketchum <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > sound good to me, just because she is so arrogant...and rich <g>. Which
> > > is why they brought charges anyway,
> >
> > She's being charged because she donated to democrats including hillary
> > clinton. The charges were such a reach that even business magazines had
> > articles on how dangerous and biased the prosecutions were.
> >
>
> Thanks, I needed a good laugh.
The business literature is there if you are interested in their
perspective. Ditto on the legal commentaries.
Its all rather negative, but I do have one thing that should make you
smile. Talibano leader Ashcroft is in the hospital and supposedly
suffering. I'll bet he can get pain killers that terminal patients are
denied in the name of the "war on drugs."
> She couldn't have been too closely connected
> to the Clintons because she hasn't died in a mysterious airplane crash.
That reminds of Limbaugh, et al, who blathered about the Clinton "body
list." Can you believe that there are actually people who believed that
stuff?
Hey, did you know that Bush made assassinations legal through executive
order?
All, very sad.
>
> more than that. now the prez can unilaterally (and secretly) declare
> anyone he wants to be a terrorist, secretly arrest them, secretly try
> them in a military court where they do not have access to lawyers,
> secretly sentence them to death, secretly carry out that sentence.....
> he swears that he would never do that to an american citizen, but the
> laws say nothing about citizenship.
>
> the guy's a fucking facist.
p_j writes:
>ut I do have one thing that should make you
>smile. Talibano leader Ashcroft is in the hospital and supposedly
>suffering. I'll bet he can get pain killers that terminal patients are
>denied in the name of the "war on drugs."
Sorry. I wouldn't wish that on anyone. I don't like the guy, but I've been
there and done that, and those drugs are needed: when my pancreatitis hit, I
was on a morphine or demerol drip for 3-4 days (things do kind of blur).
Otherwise, it might never have resolved itself without the young surgeon in
training--Let's cut! Let's cut! Let's CUT!--might have been pickling my gall
bladder for me to take home. I've hurt worse--torn ligaments on both sides of
my groin in an offroad motorcycle crash--but I do not want either pain back
again.
>> She couldn't have been too closely connected
>> to the Clintons because she hasn't died in a mysterious airplane crash.
>
>That reminds of Limbaugh, et al, who blathered about the Clinton "body
>list." Can you believe that there are actually people who believed that
>stuff?
No trouble believing it. After all, people do listen to, and believe,
Limburger.
>
>Hey, did you know that Bush made assassinations legal through executive
>order?
Good grief.
Charlie Self
"Facts are stubborn, but statistics are more pliable." Mark Twain
http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/myhomepage/business.html
On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 11:34:10 -0700, Bridger wrote:
>
> more than that. now the prez can unilaterally (and secretly) declare
> anyone he wants to be a terrorist, secretly arrest them, secretly try
> them in a military court where they do not have access to lawyers,
> secretly sentence them to death, secretly carry out that sentence.....
> he swears that he would never do that to an american citizen, but the
> laws say nothing about citizenship.
>
> the guy's a fucking facist.
I've noticed people disappearing right and left around here, but the buzz
is they're being abducted by the aliens as a food source...
--
-Doug
"Bridger" wrote in message
> try
> them in a military court where they do not have access to lawyers,
While not having "access to lawyers", or counsel, is not even possible in a
military court, where the safeguards will be is in "judicial review" of the
verdict of a military court.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 3/05/04
"Bridger" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 07 Mar 2004 15:29:46 GMT, [email protected] (Charlie Self)
> wrote:
>
> >>p_j writes:
> >>
> >>
> >>Hey, did you know that Bush made assassinations legal through executive
> >>order?
> >
> >Good grief.
> >
> >Charlie Self
>
>
> more than that. now the prez can unilaterally (and secretly) declare
> anyone he wants to be a terrorist, secretly arrest them, secretly try
> them in a military court where they do not have access to lawyers,
> secretly sentence them to death, secretly carry out that sentence.....
> he swears that he would never do that to an american citizen, but the
> laws say nothing about citizenship.
>
> the guy's a fucking facist.
Hey let them all out, then they can come back and do a 9- 11 in your area
next time . you libs kill me, problem is if you ever had your way you would
kill us all .....mjh
Mike Hide writes:
>
>Hey let them all out, then they can come back and do a 9- 11 in your area
>next time . you libs kill me, problem is if you ever had your way you would
>kill us all .....mjh
Mike, you're a good woodworker. Let's leave it at that. Somewhere in the
Consitution, it provides protection against the kind of things Bush's Babies
are doing. Sooner or later, you guys will wonder where the freedoms went while
you're hunkering down for the next 9/11, which will probably occur anyhow, in
ways no one has yet foreseen.
Charlie Self
"Facts are stubborn, but statistics are more pliable." Mark Twain
http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/myhomepage/business.html
On 07 Mar 2004 15:29:46 GMT, [email protected] (Charlie Self)
wrote:
>>p_j writes:
>>
>>
>>Hey, did you know that Bush made assassinations legal through executive
>>order?
>
>Good grief.
>
>Charlie Self
more than that. now the prez can unilaterally (and secretly) declare
anyone he wants to be a terrorist, secretly arrest them, secretly try
them in a military court where they do not have access to lawyers,
secretly sentence them to death, secretly carry out that sentence.....
he swears that he would never do that to an american citizen, but the
laws say nothing about citizenship.
the guy's a fucking facist.
Mike Hide <[email protected]> wrote:
> You are right [as in correct ] as usual Frank, I heard that both the jury
> and the judge were all republicans .
For someone who is so PC, I'm surprised you haven't heard. Juries aren't
supposed to be trusted at all in the neoconservative era of permanent
peace.
I wonder how long it'll be before the prosecutor gets a judgeship.
Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
> That's one thing that pisses me off recently. Kerry and Edwards talking
> about how nothing (legally) is happening to George Bush's so called
> "friends!" George Bush's so called "friends" are being indicted and\or
> confessing faster than an Ethiopian chicken can run!
So called? Are you nuts? Did you think that Ken Lay's contribution to
the two plane loads of lawyers that flew into Florida isn't being
rewarded? Are you unaware of the tape of Bush and his dad at a Enron
celebration where they sang happy birthday to Ken that nobody gets to
see now. Why do you think that Bush, in lie #589,693, claimed not to
have known Lay and then a personal meeting was documented?
>
> Knowing that trials like these take FOREVER! Both of them (especially an
> ambulance-chaser like Edwards)
Ambulance chaser? You mean like a bunch of the guys who founded the
country? Got ANYTHING to back up your talk radio demonization?
The real reason that lawyers are hated by modern conservatives is that
they represent individual rights.
> are bending the truth so far it's going to
> snap. Hopefully in their face.
You think people propagating lies should suffer? What about yourself?
>
> They seem to forget that in his last day in office, Slick Willie was signing
> his own confession (Remember the "VAST Right Wing Conspiracy?") and handing
> out pardons to all of his friends!
lol... you're confused. It was the first Bush who did that. Pardoned
people looking at hanging offenses (his friends) and who would directly
implicate him.
The vast right wing conspiracy, AKA the Arkansas project, isn't a
mystery to anyone.
mel <[email protected]> wrote:
> Now that you've established that Willy wasn't the only one guilty of
> committing a crime while in office
What crime?
xrongor <[email protected]> wrote:
> im not sure who is the acting procecuter on this thing, but its time for a
> rhetorical pop quiz:
>
> how many of clintons appointees were challenged by the republicans forcing
> him to go to a second or third choice to avoid a filibuster (yes, they
> threatened this)? (hint, large number)
>
> how many of bushes appointees were challenged by the democrats period?
> (hint, low number)
>
> bonus points, how many of bush appointees are major shareholders in enron?
> dont peek: http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/repubnews/bushenron.htm
The answer to all this is that republicans are good and democrats are
evil. If you want to understand that (which is discouraged), a good
guide can be found in the writings of George Orwell.
On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 09:10:14 -0600, p_j wrote:
> Hey, did you know that Bush made assassinations legal through executive
> order?
>
> All, very sad.
Damn, I can't find it in the list of all the executive orders he has given:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/orders/
Maybe you could point me to the date of the one you are referring to -
unless it was issued in secret.
--
-Doug
No, she was being charged because she broke the law and tried to cover it up,
same as Nixon, same as Clinton. There is a whole community of folks that
advised he to fess up, pay a fine and be done with it, she didn't and now
she's paying. She wasn't even charged with insider trading for the coverup
and interference with the investigation. Her own legal team has conceded she
got the tip. See this from the AP >
http://apnews.excite.com/article/20040306/D81549G00.html
Nixon wouldn't have had to resign if when if found out about the breakin he
had punished those who broke the law rather than covering it up. Clinton
would have avoided impeachment and the BJ would have blown over in a few days
if he had just said yep, and it was a good one, rather than lying under oath
to a grand jury. Covering up a wrong doing almost always get you in bigger
trouble than deed itself would. Martha was just arrogant and stupid.
p_j wrote:
> > sound good to me, just because she is so arrogant...and rich <g>. Which
> > is why they brought charges anyway,
>
> She's being charged because she donated to democrats including hillary
> clinton. The charges were such a reach that even business magazines had
> articles on how dangerous and biased the prosecutions were.
>
> The best part was that she was charged for declaring her innocence. If
> she went down for that one, it will be a first.
>
> Ken lay is livin' large though.
On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 04:26:28 +0000, Mark & Juanita wrote:
>
> So you are saying that Washington state essentially has two general
> elections? If I read you right, you can vote for both Democrat and
> Republican candidates in the same primary in Washington state, but only
> one candidate per position?
It has a primary where anyone can vote for the candidate of their choice.
You can only cast one vote per position. The Candidates with the
plurality in each party (including all the
independant/green/martian parties) advance to the general election.
> As I said before, the primaries should essentially be the perview of
> the individual parties. Think about how a third party would get
> started, shouldn't that party be able to be selective in who determines
> the candidates for that party?
In Arizona, if you register as independant, you get one vote "for any of
the others", not a vote for each of the fringe parties. If you could
register as green, independant, socialist, whatever, it might make sense,
but if you're not a "D" or an "R", then you're an independant and get one
vote amongst the collection of stray partys.
> What if your party has the incumbent who is firmly ensconced in
> his/her position and is running un-opposed in the primaries? Why
> shouldn't I spend my vote making sure that the real election is a cake-
> walk rather than a potentially hard-fought competition.
If that incumbent ain't doing their job, they'll get the boot in the
general. Happened with Jimmy Carter, GHWB and I'm sure many other
incumbents. I think term limits as in our Presidential elections can take
care of that if a bad performance doesn't. They're supposed to be normal
citizens giving some time and then returning home, not career power
mongers. We really ought to extend what goes for Presidents to Senators
and Congressmen so they get to live with their decisions in a timely
manner. And we should not allow them to shower themselves with any more
largess than they provide for the masses. And they shouldn't be providing
any largess for the masses at the federal level at least.
--
-Doug
On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 22:25:19 +0000, Frank Ketchum wrote:
> Umm, are you denying the occurences of several plane crashes that happened
> and were reported (not reported by Limbaugh) and the people killed who had
> ties to the Clintons? Go ahead and deny something that happened, it isn't
> me that it makes look uniformed.
As slick as Willy is, let's bury this one (in a manner of speaking):
http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/clinton.htm
--
-Doug
"p_j" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> The real reason that lawyers are hated by modern conservatives is that
> they represent individual rights.
>
Sleazy lawyers are despised by both liberals and conservatives alike. They
are interested in making money for themselves, not for their clients. The
victim of an accident is merely the tool to be used.
Sure there are some good lawyers, but too many are opportunists.
Ed
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
>> She's being charged because she donated to democrats including hillary
>> clinton.
>
> Yeah, let's build new jails to house all the donators to Hillary and
> friends.
Actually not a bad idea. House all the donators to Shrub & Co. too. Lock
up all the lobbiests and rich people. Then the politic-rats won't have any
money to bore us with stupid TV ads for twenty months before election day,
and the congress critters won't have any particular motivation to go pass
stupid new laws. It might even make being a congress critter a part time
thing, instead of a career. Crazy concept, I know. Not what the founding
fathers had in mind at all.
--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
hahaha. thats a good one. i predict not even a slap.
fuzzy zeller made a comment about 'chicken and blackeye peas' or something
like that, and it was truly just a joke about tiger woods, but he got his
entire line of kmart products pulled. lets see what happens to martha...
randy
"Bay Area Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Just read that Martha was found guilty on 6 counts! Now let's see if
> she gets more than a slap on her wrist.
>
> dave
>
"Bay Area Dave" wrote in message
> Just read that Martha was found guilty on 6 counts! Now let's see if
> she gets more than a slap on her wrist.
Better yet ... let's see what the WorldCom and Enron honcho's get for a much
more dastardly deed that hurt a hell of lot more folks.
Greed and arrogance will hit the hardest in the solitude of a cell. Can you
imagine trying to sleep at night after basically losing a mega-million
dollar empire over +/- 40K worth of stock?
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 2/28/04
Swingman notes:
>"Bay Area Dave" wrote in message
>> Just read that Martha was found guilty on 6 counts! Now let's see if
>> she gets more than a slap on her wrist.
>
>Better yet ... let's see what the WorldCom and Enron honcho's get for a much
>more dastardly deed that hurt a hell of lot more folks.
>
>Greed and arrogance will hit the hardest in the solitude of a cell. Can you
>imagine trying to sleep at night after basically losing a mega-million
>dollar empire over +/- 40K worth of stock?
The kicker here is the real sufferers from this vendetta will be the people
working for Martha Stewart's companies. Those are going to shrink. The jobs
will go away, never to return. More taxes cut from government rolls. People on
the unemployment rolls.
Why? Because someone had to equate a minor bit of foolishness with the Enron,
WorldCom, Andersen messes. I'd guess that some Fed also had a hard-on for Ms
Stewart beause she is reputed to be arrogant and bitchy.
Loss of jobs? Roughly, dozens, possibly hundreds.
Our tax dollars at work.
Charlie Self
"Facts are stubborn, but statistics are more pliable." Mark Twain
http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/myhomepage/business.html
Don't be ridiculous. New name, same product, march smartly into the future.
Remember Kathy Lee and the sweatshop scandal? Now THAT was a vendetta.
Betcha Wally World's still buying from the same place.
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> The kicker here is the real sufferers from this vendetta will be the
people
> working for Martha Stewart's companies. Those are going to shrink. The
jobs
> will go away, never to return. More taxes cut from government rolls.
People on
> the unemployment rolls.
>
.
>
> Loss of jobs? Roughly, dozens, possibly hundreds.
>
> Our tax dollars at work.
>
George wrings out:
>Don't be ridiculous. New name, same product, march smartly into the future.
So what are they going to call all the peripheral media products? Looks more
like a limp to me.
As for Kathy Lee, I don't see the sales being the same without the cachet
attached before her name got trashed. I'm sure Walmart buys from the same
places. Hell, they probably put her onto the places.
It ain't good to be a bossy woman in today's world.
Charlie Self
"Facts are stubborn, but statistics are more pliable." Mark Twain
http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/myhomepage/business.html
On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 18:19:53 -0500, "George"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Remember Kathy Lee and the sweatshop scandal? Now THAT was a vendetta.
>Betcha Wally World's still buying from the same place.
The NBA is.
Barry
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> On 05 Mar 2004 22:55:47 GMT, [email protected] (Charlie Self)
> wrote:
>
> >Swingman notes:
> >
> >>"Bay Area Dave" wrote in message
> >>> Just read that Martha was found guilty on 6 counts! Now let's see if
> >>> she gets more than a slap on her wrist.
> >>
> >>Better yet ... let's see what the WorldCom and Enron honcho's get for a much
> >>more dastardly deed that hurt a hell of lot more folks.
> >>
> >>Greed and arrogance will hit the hardest in the solitude of a cell. Can you
> >>imagine trying to sleep at night after basically losing a mega-million
> >>dollar empire over +/- 40K worth of stock?
> >
> >The kicker here is the real sufferers from this vendetta will be the people
> >working for Martha Stewart's companies. Those are going to shrink. The jobs
> >will go away, never to return. More taxes cut from government rolls. People on
> >the unemployment rolls.
> >
> >Why? Because someone had to equate a minor bit of foolishness with the Enron,
> >WorldCom, Andersen messes. I'd guess that some Fed also had a hard-on for Ms
> >Stewart beause she is reputed to be arrogant and bitchy.
>
> besause she's a democrat.
>
>
My understanding is that the US Attorney acting as prosecutor is a
Clinton appointee.
>
> >
> >Loss of jobs? Roughly, dozens, possibly hundreds.
> >
> >Our tax dollars at work.
> >
> >Charlie Self
> >"Facts are stubborn, but statistics are more pliable." Mark Twain
> >
> >http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/myhomepage/business.html
>
>
Mark & Juanita responds:
>> >Stewart beause she is reputed to be arrogant and bitchy.
>>
>> besause she's a democrat.
>>
>>
>
> My understanding is that the US Attorney acting as prosecutor is a
>Clinton appointee.
>
Trying to hang onto the job?
Charlie Self
"Facts are stubborn, but statistics are more pliable." Mark Twain
http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/myhomepage/business.html
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Swingman notes:
>
> >"Bay Area Dave" wrote in message
> >> Just read that Martha was found guilty on 6 counts! Now let's see if
> >> she gets more than a slap on her wrist.
> >
> >Better yet ... let's see what the WorldCom and Enron honcho's get for a much
> >more dastardly deed that hurt a hell of lot more folks.
> >
> >Greed and arrogance will hit the hardest in the solitude of a cell. Can you
> >imagine trying to sleep at night after basically losing a mega-million
> >dollar empire over +/- 40K worth of stock?
>
> The kicker here is the real sufferers from this vendetta will be the people
> working for Martha Stewart's companies. Those are going to shrink. The jobs
> will go away, never to return. More taxes cut from government rolls. People on
> the unemployment rolls.
>
So we determine whether or not to prosecute a crime based upon how
many other people might be affected if the perpetrator is convicted?
Maybe we should stop convicting bank robbers if they have families who
will be left destitute because their sole breadwinner will be
imprisoned.
> Why? Because someone had to equate a minor bit of foolishness with the Enron,
> WorldCom, Andersen messes. I'd guess that some Fed also had a hard-on for Ms
> Stewart beause she is reputed to be arrogant and bitchy.
>
> Loss of jobs? Roughly, dozens, possibly hundreds.
>
> Our tax dollars at work.
>
> Charlie Self
> "Facts are stubborn, but statistics are more pliable." Mark Twain
>
> http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/myhomepage/business.html
>
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Charlie Self" wrote in message
>
> > I tend to agree with someone who posted elsewhere that she got crappy
> advice
> > from her lawyers, that an original copping to a plea agreement would
have
> had
> > her laying out a lot of money, losing her ill-gotten $51,000 and getting
> her
> > wrist slapped. The attendant publicity here is going to cripple a
business
> that
> > was worth a lot of money, provided a lot of jobs. Already has, and I am
> not
> > writing of the imported sheet sets.
>
> Which goes to the point that, once again, it was not the crime, but the
> coverup, that will eventually have cost someone a life's work. Living with
> that is almost punishment enough.
>
> > No, that isn't a reason for letting her get by with that, nor did I
> suggest she
> > should get by with it, if she's guilty as charged and convicted. But it
is
> sure
> > as hell a reason for making sure the publicity and general government
> bullshit
> > doesn't get out of hand, while the prosecuting attorney cries tears of
joy
> at
> > winning (was that because he thought he had lost, or because he's a true
> > jackass anyway?).
> >
> > It does say that a vendetta is a piss poor way to provide examples, too.
>
> Amen!
>
> It's damn hard to provide an effective argument against the results of
> "selective prosecution". That's why it's used so effectively by those in
> power. Witness the documented cases of prosecutorial misconduct, and
> outright lying by individuals in law enforcement, in the purported day
care
> child molestation cases a few years back.
>
> Since no one is perfect, you could be the next target of anyone willing to
> spin the facts enough ... particularly with the media feeding frenzies
that
> are so prevalent.
>
> --
> www.e-woodshop.net
> Last update: 3/05/04
>
>
Yep. I agree (as if that means anything.) The real kicker I think is she
lost money in the long run anyways. Ever check out what happened to the
stockl after she sold it? Sure it went down at first then it rebounded and
actually went higher than she sold it for.
D. Mo
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> D. Mo responds:
>
> >The real kicker I think is she
> >lost money in the long run anyways. Ever check out what happened to the
> >stockl after she sold it? Sure it went down at first then it rebounded
and
> >actually went higher than she sold it for.
>
> That's not her only loss of money. The cost of her lawyers, as poor as
they
> were, has to be extremely high, and the slide in stock in her companies is
> going to cost multiple millions as well. Not that she's likely to ever be
poor.
>
> Charlie Self
> "Facts are stubborn, but statistics are more pliable." Mark Twain
>
> http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/myhomepage/business.html
Quite true. Though in the long run I think "her" company will survive. I
mean she's alradey lost control of the company and I think you'll see the
Martha Stewart dropped from Omnimedia and the brands. The only major losses
will be her TV show and the magazine (not that I personally feel any is a
loss). That's just a personal opinion. I mean look at ImClone, the stock
she dumped it rebounded. Not aying it won't be rough but the company can
survive. Heck with the short attention span of ,ost Americans she may even
get her show and magazine back in a few years. We love a good comeback
story.
D. Mo
Disclaimer: All opinions expressed are my own and have no bearing on
reality. I refuse to allow facts to cloud my thinking.
D. Mo responds:
>The real kicker I think is she
>lost money in the long run anyways. Ever check out what happened to the
>stockl after she sold it? Sure it went down at first then it rebounded and
>actually went higher than she sold it for.
That's not her only loss of money. The cost of her lawyers, as poor as they
were, has to be extremely high, and the slide in stock in her companies is
going to cost multiple millions as well. Not that she's likely to ever be poor.
Charlie Self
"Facts are stubborn, but statistics are more pliable." Mark Twain
http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/myhomepage/business.html
just a little interesting tidbit i dug out...
sharon patrick is now the ceo of MSO and is the creator of the MSO business
model. sharon patrick used to be a principal/partner in the company
McKinsey and Company. mckinsey is famous for its business strategies
involving rewarding management so greatly that they not only screw their
regular employees, they drive the company out of business. she left in
1989, and in 1990 another former mckinsey partner, jeff skilling (are you
catching on yet?) went on to lead another wonderful company, the same
company that hired mckinsey to do millions and millions of dollars worth of
studies to set up their business model, which completely failed. that
company? enron.
everyone is in bed together.
btw, chelsea clinton just got a plumb job working for mckinsey!
randy
"D. Mo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Quite true. Though in the long run I think "her" company will survive. I
> mean she's alradey lost control of the company and I think you'll see the
> Martha Stewart dropped from Omnimedia and the brands. The only major
losses
> will be her TV show and the magazine
Just heard on the news tonight that some stations have dropped the TV show.
It may survive, but is surely will take a big hit as stations and
advertisers distance themselves from the felon image.
Ed
Mark & Juanita writes:
> The kicker here is the real sufferers from this vendetta will be the people
>> working for Martha Stewart's companies. Those are going to shrink. The jobs
>> will go away, never to return. More taxes cut from government rolls. People
>on
>> the unemployment rolls.
>>
>
> So we determine whether or not to prosecute a crime based upon how
>many other people might be affected if the perpetrator is convicted?
>Maybe we should stop convicting bank robbers if they have families who
>will be left destitute because their sole breadwinner will be
>imprisoned.
>
It's historical. First time I heard of it, a couple brothers who owned a hotel
in the Catskills got nailed for income tax evasion. While they didn't get off,
they did moderated sentences, so that one brother was out to run the hotel,
while the other was in. Their take: 5 million bucks. IIRC, they also had to pay
half that back. And that was in '73 or so bucks.
I tend to agree with someone who posted elsewhere that she got crappy advice
from her lawyers, that an original copping to a plea agreement would have had
her laying out a lot of money, losing her ill-gotten $51,000 and getting her
wrist slapped. The attendant publicity here is going to cripple a business that
was worth a lot of money, provided a lot of jobs. Already has, and I am not
writing of the imported sheet sets.
No, that isn't a reason for letting her get by with that, nor did I suggest she
should get by with it, if she's guilty as charged and convicted. But it is sure
as hell a reason for making sure the publicity and general government bullshit
doesn't get out of hand, while the prosecuting attorney cries tears of joy at
winning (was that because he thought he had lost, or because he's a true
jackass anyway?).
It does say that a vendetta is a piss poor way to provide examples, too.
I may be mean-minded, but given the apologia for the Hallibruton nonsense, this
does seem something excessive, aimed at a woman perceived as bitchy,
foulmouthed--and Democratic.
Charlie Self
"Facts are stubborn, but statistics are more pliable." Mark Twain
http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/myhomepage/business.html
"Charlie Self" wrote in message
> I tend to agree with someone who posted elsewhere that she got crappy
advice
> from her lawyers, that an original copping to a plea agreement would have
had
> her laying out a lot of money, losing her ill-gotten $51,000 and getting
her
> wrist slapped. The attendant publicity here is going to cripple a business
that
> was worth a lot of money, provided a lot of jobs. Already has, and I am
not
> writing of the imported sheet sets.
Which goes to the point that, once again, it was not the crime, but the
coverup, that will eventually have cost someone a life's work. Living with
that is almost punishment enough.
> No, that isn't a reason for letting her get by with that, nor did I
suggest she
> should get by with it, if she's guilty as charged and convicted. But it is
sure
> as hell a reason for making sure the publicity and general government
bullshit
> doesn't get out of hand, while the prosecuting attorney cries tears of joy
at
> winning (was that because he thought he had lost, or because he's a true
> jackass anyway?).
>
> It does say that a vendetta is a piss poor way to provide examples, too.
Amen!
It's damn hard to provide an effective argument against the results of
"selective prosecution". That's why it's used so effectively by those in
power. Witness the documented cases of prosecutorial misconduct, and
outright lying by individuals in law enforcement, in the purported day care
child molestation cases a few years back.
Since no one is perfect, you could be the next target of anyone willing to
spin the facts enough ... particularly with the media feeding frenzies that
are so prevalent.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 3/05/04
> > >Why? Because someone had to equate a minor bit of foolishness with the
Enron,
> > >WorldCom, Andersen messes. I'd guess that some Fed also had a hard-on
for Ms
> > >Stewart beause she is reputed to be arrogant and bitchy.
> >
> > besause she's a democrat.
> >
> >
>
> My understanding is that the US Attorney acting as prosecutor is a
> Clinton appointee.
im not sure who is the acting procecuter on this thing, but its time for a
rhetorical pop quiz:
how many of clintons appointees were challenged by the republicans forcing
him to go to a second or third choice to avoid a filibuster (yes, they
threatened this)? (hint, large number)
how many of bushes appointees were challenged by the democrats period?
(hint, low number)
bonus points, how many of bush appointees are major shareholders in enron?
dont peek: http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/repubnews/bushenron.htm
randy
Charlie Self wrote:
> Loss of jobs? Roughly, dozens, possibly hundreds.
Charlie...
Look at it this way: At least a few of those people will find new
jobs flipping burgers in fast food joints - which improves the
manufacturing employment statistics.
--
Morris Dovey
West Des Moines, Iowa USA
C links at http://www.iedu.com/c
Read my lips: The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.
Morris Dovey writes:
>Charlie Self wrote:
>
>> Loss of jobs? Roughly, dozens, possibly hundreds.
>
>Charlie...
>
>Look at it this way: At least a few of those people will find new
>jobs flipping burgers in fast food joints - which improves the
>manufacturing employment statistics.
There you go. That's work. Further proof of Bushian stats that show a minimum
wage job is as good as 50K a year.
Charlie Self
"Facts are stubborn, but statistics are more pliable." Mark Twain
http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/myhomepage/business.html
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Morris Dovey writes:
> >Charlie Self wrote:
> >
> >> Loss of jobs? Roughly, dozens, possibly hundreds.
> >
> >Charlie...
> >
> >Look at it this way: At least a few of those people will find new
> >jobs flipping burgers in fast food joints - which improves the
> >manufacturing employment statistics.
>
> There you go. That's work. Further proof of Bushian stats that show a
minimum
> wage job is as good as 50K a year.
>
> Charlie Self
> "Facts are stubborn, but statistics are more pliable." Mark Twain
>
> http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/myhomepage/business.html
Cmon...I thought this is what you libs like...rich people getting their
comeuppance. Oh, you mean rich people actually give jobs to regular people?
Someone should alert the DNC.
todd
todd writes:
>Cmon...I thought this is what you libs like...rich people getting their
>comeuppance. Oh, you mean rich people actually give jobs to regular people?
>Someone should alert the DNC.
You got a problem with the real world, don't you?
Goodbye.
Charlie Self
"Facts are stubborn, but statistics are more pliable." Mark Twain
http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/myhomepage/business.html
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Swingman notes:
>
> >"Bay Area Dave" wrote in message
> >> Just read that Martha was found guilty on 6 counts! Now let's see if
> >> she gets more than a slap on her wrist.
> >
> >Better yet ... let's see what the WorldCom and Enron honcho's get for a
much
> >more dastardly deed that hurt a hell of lot more folks.
> >
> >Greed and arrogance will hit the hardest in the solitude of a cell. Can
you
> >imagine trying to sleep at night after basically losing a mega-million
> >dollar empire over +/- 40K worth of stock?
>
> The kicker here is the real sufferers from this vendetta will be the
people
> working for Martha Stewart's companies. Those are going to shrink. The
jobs
> will go away, never to return. More taxes cut from government rolls.
People on
> the unemployment rolls.
>
> Why? Because someone had to equate a minor bit of foolishness with the
Enron,
> WorldCom, Andersen messes. I'd guess that some Fed also had a hard-on for
Ms
> Stewart beause she is reputed to be arrogant and bitchy.
>
> Loss of jobs? Roughly, dozens, possibly hundreds.
ya mexican, chinese, and taiwanese jobs... you think any of that crap is
made in the usa? at best assembled. by minimum wage workers. with no
health benefits.
>
> Our tax dollars at work.
did martha do insider trading? yes.
should she be punished? yes.
two wrongs dont make a right. arguing that the economy is so dependant on
martha that she shouldnt be punished for doing something wrong is silly. if
a non-violent 3-striker in california can be put away for life, and a guy
with a pot plant can have his house taken away, the people in charge of
enron should be jailed for life. martha? she needs to do at least two
years. and she can sell the business preserving all those foreign and
crappy us jobs.
you play with the bull, you get the horns. i for one have seen enough
corporate crimanals buy their way out of things.
randy
> >ya mexican, chinese, and taiwanese jobs... you think any of that crap is
> >made in the usa? at best assembled. by minimum wage workers. with no
> >health benefits.
>
> I'll be a sumbitch. And here I thought that TV show and her magazine were
> written and produced in the U.S. Where were they made? Mexico? Taiwan?
China?
> The bits I've watched seem to have been made with U.S. skill. And the
magazine
> doesn't read like anything put out in a non-English speaking country.
Maybe the
> longshoremen who unload the shiploads of stuff brought in are also from
China.
I think the previous poster was referring to her retail product lines, the
Martha Stewart kitchenware, trinkets, textile products, and other wares sold
at stores like K-mart. Most of that stuff is indeed produced offshore.
mp responds:
>> >ya mexican, chinese, and taiwanese jobs... you think any of that crap is
>> >made in the usa? at best assembled. by minimum wage workers. with no
>> >health benefits.
>>
>> I'll be a sumbitch. And here I thought that TV show and her magazine were
>> written and produced in the U.S. Where were they made? Mexico? Taiwan?
>China?
>> The bits I've watched seem to have been made with U.S. skill. And the
>magazine
>> doesn't read like anything put out in a non-English speaking country.
>Maybe the
>> longshoremen who unload the shiploads of stuff brought in are also from
>China.
>
>I think the previous poster was referring to her retail product lines, the
>Martha Stewart kitchenware, trinkets, textile products, and other wares sold
>at stores like K-mart. Most of that stuff is indeed produced offshore.
Get out much? I know damned well what the poster was referring to. And
overlooking, which is what I was referring to, both originally and above.
Charlie Self
"Facts are stubborn, but statistics are more pliable." Mark Twain
http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/myhomepage/business.html
xronger responds:
>> Why? Because someone had to equate a minor bit of foolishness with the
>Enron,
>> WorldCom, Andersen messes. I'd guess that some Fed also had a hard-on for
>Ms
>> Stewart beause she is reputed to be arrogant and bitchy.
>>
>> Loss of jobs? Roughly, dozens, possibly hundreds.
>
>ya mexican, chinese, and taiwanese jobs... you think any of that crap is
>made in the usa? at best assembled. by minimum wage workers. with no
>health benefits.
I'll be a sumbitch. And here I thought that TV show and her magazine were
written and produced in the U.S. Where were they made? Mexico? Taiwan? China?
The bits I've watched seem to have been made with U.S. skill. And the magazine
doesn't read like anything put out in a non-English speaking country. Maybe the
longshoremen who unload the shiploads of stuff brought in are also from China.
Almost no textile products are made in the U.S. today. Check your LL Bean shirt
labels.
>
>did martha do insider trading? yes.
>should she be punished? yes.
>two wrongs dont make a right. arguing that the economy is so dependant on
>martha that she shouldnt be punished for doing something wrong is silly. if
I didn't say the economy was dependent on Martha, though I'm sure in hundreds
of families it is. She was ocnvicted of insider trading. Was she guilty? Who
the hell knows. I didn't hear the evidence.
>and she can sell the business preserving all those foreign and
>crappy us jobs.
>
Who is going to buy a business going broke or being seriouslyr educed in size?
You? Bargain time?
> i for one have seen enough
>corporate crimanals buy their way out of things.
>
Yeah, well, let's wait until the real criminals get to trial, those who stole
billions, not a supposed 51K.
Charlie Self
"Facts are stubborn, but statistics are more pliable." Mark Twain
http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/myhomepage/business.html
"mp" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > >ya mexican, chinese, and taiwanese jobs... you think any of that crap
is
> > >made in the usa? at best assembled. by minimum wage workers. with no
> > >health benefits.
> >
> > I'll be a sumbitch. And here I thought that TV show and her magazine
were
> > written and produced in the U.S. Where were they made? Mexico? Taiwan?
> China?
> > The bits I've watched seem to have been made with U.S. skill. And the
> magazine
> > doesn't read like anything put out in a non-English speaking country.
> Maybe the
> > longshoremen who unload the shiploads of stuff brought in are also from
> China.
>
> I think the previous poster was referring to her retail product lines, the
> Martha Stewart kitchenware, trinkets, textile products, and other wares
sold
> at stores like K-mart. Most of that stuff is indeed produced offshore.
exactly.
as for the production of her tv show there may be a few decent jobs there
(it really doesnt take that many people to put on a tv show). but its not
because of generosity. 'some' tv people just happen to be in the 1% of
people in this country who have a union to protect them. martha stewart is
just another rich person standing on the backs of hungry people and thought
she could get away with lying. i guess she just wasnt quite rich enough.
randy
xrongor babbles:
>> China.
>>
>> I think the previous poster was referring to her retail product lines, the
>> Martha Stewart kitchenware, trinkets, textile products, and other wares
>sold
>> at stores like K-mart. Most of that stuff is indeed produced offshore.
>
>exactly.
>
>as for the production of her tv show there may be a few decent jobs there
>(it really doesnt take that many people to put on a tv show). but its not
>because of generosity. 'some' tv people just happen to be in the 1% of
>people in this country who have a union to protect them. martha stewart is
>just another rich person standing on the backs of hungry people and thought
>she could get away with lying. i guess she just wasnt quite rich enough.
>
WTF does genorisity have to do with it? No one accused her of being generous.
Or even mentioned the word, in fact. It can take quite a few people to put on a
TV show, and a single show can provide income for a number of people in
production and administrative...ah, hell. Forget it. It won't penetrate bone.
Charlie Self
"Facts are stubborn, but statistics are more pliable." Mark Twain
http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/myhomepage/business.html
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> xrongor babbles:
>
> >> China.
> >>
> >> I think the previous poster was referring to her retail product lines,
the
> >> Martha Stewart kitchenware, trinkets, textile products, and other wares
> >sold
> >> at stores like K-mart. Most of that stuff is indeed produced offshore.
> >
> >exactly.
> >
> >as for the production of her tv show there may be a few decent jobs there
> >(it really doesnt take that many people to put on a tv show). but its
not
> >because of generosity. 'some' tv people just happen to be in the 1% of
> >people in this country who have a union to protect them. martha stewart
is
> >just another rich person standing on the backs of hungry people and
thought
> >she could get away with lying. i guess she just wasnt quite rich enough.
> >
>
> WTF does genorisity have to do with it? No one accused her of being
generous.
> Or even mentioned the word, in fact. It can take quite a few people to put
on a
> TV show, and a single show can provide income for a number of people in
> production and administrative...ah, hell. Forget it. It won't penetrate
bone.
ill just write it off to newsgroup miscommunication. happens all the time.
i dont even think we are on the same page any more.
randy
xrongor wrote:
>> They seem to forget that in his last day in office, Slick Willie was signing
>> his own confession (Remember the "VAST Right Wing Conspiracy?") and handing
>> out pardons to all of his friends!
>
> pop quiz: who was robert wendell walker jr?
He was a convicted bank robber who got pardoned by Ronald Reagan. He
subsequently killed his wife, butchered her, and burned her remains in a barrel.
Your tax dollars at work...
--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
[email protected]
http://www.mortimerschnerd.com
Mortimer Schnerd responds:
>xrongor wrote:
>>> They seem to forget that in his last day in office, Slick Willie was
>signing
>>> his own confession (Remember the "VAST Right Wing Conspiracy?") and
>handing
>>> out pardons to all of his friends!
>>
>> pop quiz: who was robert wendell walker jr?
>
>
>He was a convicted bank robber who got pardoned by Ronald Reagan. He
>subsequently killed his wife, butchered her, and burned her remains in a
>barrel.
>Your tax dollars at work...
I love all these response about Slick Willie, as if he's the only politician
who ever commited any kihnd of stupidity or crime.
Go back to the annals of yesteryear, when the Lone Ran...oops, Ronnie Raygun:
Frederic Andre, commissioner of the Interstate Commerce
Commission - said in 1982 he saw nothing wrong with trucking
companies conspiring to fix prices or with a convicted
felon's operating a trucking business from jail.
Malcolm Baldridge, Secretary of Commerce - spent $15,272 on
office furnishings.
Donald Bogard, president of the Legal Services Corporation -
contracted for the government to pay for his membership in a
private club and for his trips home to Indianapolis and to
provide him severance pay.
Charles M. Butler III, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
chairman - recused himself from past cases involving former
law clients, but not new cases.
Anne M. Burford, Environmental Protection Agency
administrator - resigned after disclosures that E.P.A.
showed persistent favoritism to industrial polluters.
Robert Burford, director of the Interior Department's Bureau
of Land Management - obtained a waiver from regulations
allowing him to own an interest in grazing land administered
by his bureau.
The whole list contains, IIRC, either 117 or 137 names. This is just a pick-up
near the beginning, with no sorting for seriousness.
Charlie Self
"Facts are stubborn, but statistics are more pliable." Mark Twain
http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/myhomepage/business.html
mel asks:
>
>Now that you've established that Willy wasn't the only one guilty of
>committing a crime while in office what exactly do you propose I do with
>this information?
>
>
Point being, no one is innocent, and both Raygun and Slick are out of office
and irrelevant.
Beyond that, you can think of what you can do with it, I'm sure.
Charlie Self
"Facts are stubborn, but statistics are more pliable." Mark Twain
http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/myhomepage/business.html
That's one thing that pisses me off recently. Kerry and Edwards talking
about how nothing (legally) is happening to George Bush's so called
"friends!" George Bush's so called "friends" are being indicted and\or
confessing faster than an Ethiopian chicken can run!
Knowing that trials like these take FOREVER! Both of them (especially an
ambulance-chaser like Edwards) are bending the truth so far it's going to
snap. Hopefully in their face.
They seem to forget that in his last day in office, Slick Willie was signing
his own confession (Remember the "VAST Right Wing Conspiracy?") and handing
out pardons to all of his friends!
"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
> > On 06 Mar 2004 00:53:27 GMT, [email protected] (Charlie Self)
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> > >>
> > >Yeah, well, let's wait until the real criminals get to trial, those who
stole
> > >billions, not a supposed 51K.
> > >
> > >
> > >Charlie Self
> >
> >
> > Yes, indeed. I'm looking forward that.
> >
>
> It's already started. The Worldcom CEO has been indicted as have
> several of the Enron perps. Very likely this is going slow because the
> prosecutors know that in order to achieve convictions, they must have
> all the details covered in order to prevent having the perps escape on a
> technicality.
Walker (a thief) was also sentenced to probation, not jail. And committed a
murder a decade+ after the pardon. Hence, Reagan did not pardon him from a
jail sentence and set him free to murder. Unlike Norton, a convicted 1st
degree murderer, who killed less than a year after being released by
Dukakis.
"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> xrongor wrote:
> >> They seem to forget that in his last day in office, Slick Willie was
signing
> >> his own confession (Remember the "VAST Right Wing Conspiracy?") and
handing
> >> out pardons to all of his friends!
> >
> > pop quiz: who was robert wendell walker jr?
>
>
> He was a convicted bank robber who got pardoned by Ronald Reagan. He
> subsequently killed his wife, butchered her, and burned her remains in a
barrel.
> Your tax dollars at work...
>
>
>
> --
> Mortimer Schnerd, RN
>
> [email protected]
> http://www.mortimerschnerd.com
>
>
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> On 06 Mar 2004 00:53:27 GMT, [email protected] (Charlie Self)
> wrote:
>
>
> >>
> >Yeah, well, let's wait until the real criminals get to trial, those who stole
> >billions, not a supposed 51K.
> >
> >
> >Charlie Self
>
>
> Yes, indeed. I'm looking forward that.
>
It's already started. The Worldcom CEO has been indicted as have
several of the Enron perps. Very likely this is going slow because the
prosecutors know that in order to achieve convictions, they must have
all the details covered in order to prevent having the perps escape on a
technicality.
On 06 Mar 2004 00:53:27 GMT, [email protected] (Charlie Self)
wrote:
>>
>Yeah, well, let's wait until the real criminals get to trial, those who stole
>billions, not a supposed 51K.
>
>
>Charlie Self
Yes, indeed. I'm looking forward that.
So how about bringing back the stocks and public whipping, heck we cold even
hang a couple for good measure .
Bet you CNN couldn't wait to televise it, image if it was done on sweeps
week. Larry King could even do "on gallows" interviews....mjh
"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
> > On 06 Mar 2004 00:53:27 GMT, [email protected] (Charlie Self)
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> > >>
> > >Yeah, well, let's wait until the real criminals get to trial, those who
stole
> > >billions, not a supposed 51K.
> > >
> > >
> > >Charlie Self
> >
> >
> > Yes, indeed. I'm looking forward that.
> >
>
> It's already started. The Worldcom CEO has been indicted as have
> several of the Enron perps. Very likely this is going slow because the
> prosecutors know that in order to achieve convictions, they must have
> all the details covered in order to prevent having the perps escape on a
> technicality.
"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> That's one thing that pisses me off recently. Kerry and Edwards talking
> about how nothing (legally) is happening to George Bush's so called
> "friends!" George Bush's so called "friends" are being indicted and\or
> confessing faster than an Ethiopian chicken can run!
>
> Knowing that trials like these take FOREVER! Both of them (especially an
> ambulance-chaser like Edwards) are bending the truth so far it's going to
> snap. Hopefully in their face.
>
> They seem to forget that in his last day in office, Slick Willie was
signing
> his own confession (Remember the "VAST Right Wing Conspiracy?") and
handing
> out pardons to all of his friends!
pop quiz: who was robert wendell walker jr?
randy
"Charlie Self" wrote in message
> Why? Because someone had to equate a minor bit of foolishness with the
Enron,
> WorldCom, Andersen messes. I'd guess that some Fed also had a hard-on for
Ms
> Stewart beause she is reputed to be arrogant and bitchy.
>
> Loss of jobs? Roughly, dozens, possibly hundreds.
>
> Our tax dollars at work.
I agree with you. When taken in context with the Enron's, et al, I've been
uneasy about what seemed an inordinate amount of class envy and spite mixed
in with the media coverage, and some aspects of the case had all the ear
marks and feel of a sop, red herring, or bone thrown to the masses to make
up for lack of oversight of the regulatory agencies during this entire
period.
Still, possible overzealous prosecutors notwithstanding, you gotta hope the
jury made their decision based on the facts.
BUT, if the big boys don't get their comeuppance as well, this case could
start looking more like the above "bone" to me.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 2/28/04
somehow, I feel that she will emerge from all this none the worse for
wear. Some people are survivors. Maybe she'll take up golf and help OJ
find the "real killer".
dave
Charlie Self wrote:
> Swingman notes:
>
>
>>"Bay Area Dave" wrote in message
>>
>>>Just read that Martha was found guilty on 6 counts! Now let's see if
>>>she gets more than a slap on her wrist.
>>
>>Better yet ... let's see what the WorldCom and Enron honcho's get for a much
>>more dastardly deed that hurt a hell of lot more folks.
>>
>>Greed and arrogance will hit the hardest in the solitude of a cell. Can you
>>imagine trying to sleep at night after basically losing a mega-million
>>dollar empire over +/- 40K worth of stock?
>
>
> The kicker here is the real sufferers from this vendetta will be the people
> working for Martha Stewart's companies. Those are going to shrink. The jobs
> will go away, never to return. More taxes cut from government rolls. People on
> the unemployment rolls.
>
> Why? Because someone had to equate a minor bit of foolishness with the Enron,
> WorldCom, Andersen messes. I'd guess that some Fed also had a hard-on for Ms
> Stewart beause she is reputed to be arrogant and bitchy.
>
> Loss of jobs? Roughly, dozens, possibly hundreds.
>
> Our tax dollars at work.
>
> Charlie Self
> "Facts are stubborn, but statistics are more pliable." Mark Twain
>
> http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/myhomepage/business.html
On 05 Mar 2004 22:55:47 GMT, [email protected] (Charlie Self)
wrote:
>Swingman notes:
>
>>"Bay Area Dave" wrote in message
>>> Just read that Martha was found guilty on 6 counts! Now let's see if
>>> she gets more than a slap on her wrist.
>>
>>Better yet ... let's see what the WorldCom and Enron honcho's get for a much
>>more dastardly deed that hurt a hell of lot more folks.
>>
>>Greed and arrogance will hit the hardest in the solitude of a cell. Can you
>>imagine trying to sleep at night after basically losing a mega-million
>>dollar empire over +/- 40K worth of stock?
>
>The kicker here is the real sufferers from this vendetta will be the people
>working for Martha Stewart's companies. Those are going to shrink. The jobs
>will go away, never to return. More taxes cut from government rolls. People on
>the unemployment rolls.
>
>Why? Because someone had to equate a minor bit of foolishness with the Enron,
>WorldCom, Andersen messes. I'd guess that some Fed also had a hard-on for Ms
>Stewart beause she is reputed to be arrogant and bitchy.
besause she's a democrat.
>
>Loss of jobs? Roughly, dozens, possibly hundreds.
>
>Our tax dollars at work.
>
>Charlie Self
>"Facts are stubborn, but statistics are more pliable." Mark Twain
>
>http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/myhomepage/business.html
Charlie Self wrote:
> The kicker here is the real sufferers from this vendetta will be the
> people working for Martha Stewart's companies. Those are going to shrink.
K-Mart will probably tank for good. They put a lot on Martha, and they're
already hurting.
Wal-Mart will love this. One less place to comp shop.
--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
"p_j" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1ga7yc3.7wgrjveglolcN%[email protected]...
> Frank Ketchum <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > sound good to me, just because she is so arrogant...and rich <g>.
Which
> > > > is why they brought charges anyway,
> > >
> > > She's being charged because she donated to democrats including hillary
> > > clinton. The charges were such a reach that even business magazines
had
> > > articles on how dangerous and biased the prosecutions were.
> > >
> >
> > Thanks, I needed a good laugh.
>
> The business literature is there if you are interested in their
> perspective. Ditto on the legal commentaries.
>
> Its all rather negative, but I do have one thing that should make you
> smile. Talibano leader Ashcroft is in the hospital and supposedly
> suffering. I'll bet he can get pain killers that terminal patients are
> denied in the name of the "war on drugs."
Obviously said by someone who has never had pancreatitis, take it from me
the pain is almost unbearable the only pain killer I was given by the
hospital was morphine........mjh
> > She couldn't have been too closely connected
> > to the Clintons because she hasn't died in a mysterious airplane crash.
>
> That reminds of Limbaugh, et al, who blathered about the Clinton "body
> list." Can you believe that there are actually people who believed that
> stuff?
>
> Hey, did you know that Bush made assassinations legal through executive
> order?
>
> All, very sad.
"Bay Area Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> My wife and I were just talking about Martha. We surmise she will be
> given a sentence of 500 hours of community service: demonstrating how to
> make a bed with hospital corners.
I have a better idea. Sentence her to single handedly redecorate the whole
prison.
DexAZ wrote:
> Overall lesson learned--If you screw up, don't lie about it...better yet,
> don't screw up!
Absolutely. Coverups always lead to more dire consequences than the original
crime. If Clinton had admitted to getting the blowjob; hell, if he'd had
admitted to INHALING, the noise would have died down much sooner than it did.
Would Nixon have survived if he hadn't tried to cover up the watergate breakin?
I'll bet he would have, particularly if he could have pinned it on overzealous
supporters. Instead, well... you know what happened.
--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
[email protected]
http://www.mortimerschnerd.com
Mortimer Schnerd writes:
>
>Absolutely. Coverups always lead to more dire consequences than the original
>crime. If Clinton had admitted to getting the blowjob; hell, if he'd had
>admitted to INHALING, the noise would have died down much sooner than it did.
He had some weird reactions--I sometimes think he lied first, automatic
response action, and thought later, but was then caught up in the lie. I guess
he didn't want to face a pissed off Hillary (again!), so lied.
As for inhaling, if he didn't, what the hell was the point in the first place?
You sure didn't smoke that crap for the taste. Eau de la burning rope.
>Would Nixon have survived if he hadn't tried to cover up the watergate
>breakin?
>I'll bet he would have, particularly if he could have pinned it on
>overzealous
>supporters. Instead, well... you know what happened
Hard to tell on this one. He was combining paranoia, megalomania and booze to
an incredible degree. He might actually have fallen apart sooner. Add that to
his general insecurity complex--why would anyone get involved in the mess he
did on the second electoin is baffling, because indications from the outset
were that he'd have a rollover, which he did.
Charlie Self
"Facts are stubborn, but statistics are more pliable." Mark Twain
http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/myhomepage/business.html
Don't really believe that but it is one of the best reasons for charging her
I can think of.
--
webservant
Web design for churches http://www.gibs-web.ca
Wycliffe Bible Translators Caribbean http://www.wycliffecaribbean.org
Journaling / mental health http://www.pipcom.com/~jpeacock/
Bothwell Baptist Church http://www.forministry.com/CAONBCOOQBBC1
brought charges anyway,
>
> She's being charged because she donated to democrats including hillary
> clinton. .
Andy, can you imagine her doing hard time though? Probably a big fine,
and maybe community service, instead.
dave
Andrew Barss wrote:
> Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
> : hmm... I looked on google news and thought it was 6. anyway, 4 or 6,
> : sound good to me, just because she is so arrogant...and rich <g>. Which
> : is why they brought charges anyway, I guess; to make an example of
> : someone well known.
>
> As opposed to making an example of someone who did serious damage to
> investors, like the Enron crew. Stwart is a scapegoat.
>
> - Andy Barss
>
"p_j" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> She's being charged because she donated to democrats including hillary
> clinton.
Yeah, let's build new jails to house all the donators to Hillary and
friends.
"p_j" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1ga6qdf.1lv7dhx11je13fN%[email protected]...
>
> > sound good to me, just because she is so arrogant...and rich <g>. Which
> > is why they brought charges anyway,
>
> She's being charged because she donated to democrats including hillary
> clinton. The charges were such a reach that even business magazines had
> articles on how dangerous and biased the prosecutions were.
>
Thanks, I needed a good laugh. She couldn't have been too closely connected
to the Clintons because she hasn't died in a mysterious airplane crash.
Bullshit
--
http://users.adelphia.net/~kyhighland
"p_j" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1ga6qdf.1lv7dhx11je13fN%[email protected]...
>
> > sound good to me, just because she is so arrogant...and rich <g>. Which
> > is why they brought charges anyway,
>
> She's being charged because she donated to democrats including hillary
> clinton. The charges were such a reach that even business magazines had
> articles on how dangerous and biased the prosecutions were.
>
> The best part was that she was charged for declaring her innocence. If
> she went down for that one, it will be a first.
>
> Ken lay is livin' large though.
4 counts
--
http://users.adelphia.net/~kyhighland
"xrongor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:Dk72c.53537$PR3.1012267@attbi_s03...
> hahaha. thats a good one. i predict not even a slap.
>
> fuzzy zeller made a comment about 'chicken and blackeye peas' or something
> like that, and it was truly just a joke about tiger woods, but he got his
> entire line of kmart products pulled. lets see what happens to martha...
>
> randy
>
> "Bay Area Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Just read that Martha was found guilty on 6 counts! Now let's see if
> > she gets more than a slap on her wrist.
> >
> > dave
> >
>
>
"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:JDt2c.52108$%[email protected]...
> DexAZ wrote:
> > Overall lesson learned--If you screw up, don't lie about it...better
yet,
> > don't screw up!
>
> Absolutely. Coverups always lead to more dire consequences than the
original
> crime. If Clinton had admitted to getting the blowjob; hell, if he'd had
> admitted to INHALING, the noise would have died down much sooner than it
did.
>
> Would Nixon have survived if he hadn't tried to cover up the watergate
breakin?
> I'll bet he would have, particularly if he could have pinned it on
overzealous
> supporters. Instead, well... you know what happened.
I was wised up early regarding the temptations and consequences of
participating in a cover-up. At one point in my military service, I was
brought in as CO, to help "clean up" a troubled Missile unit where some of
the senior personnel were suspected of being involved in black market
shenanigans that went all the up to Group level.
Shortly after assuming command, and on a fine Saturday morning when most of
the military personnel in that part of the world were safely out of the way
with their wives and girlfriends buying candles and clocks, a mult-million
dollar missile was "accidentally" dropped off a launch vehicle out on "my"
tactical site. Now, this is an "incident" of huge proportions for the CO of
any unit, and absolutely requires reporting.
Since there was only minor damage to the missile, and no one was hurt,
pressure was strong from those involved to not report the incident, simply
fix the minor damage out of supply parts, and "forget the whole thing".
Howe, I suspected at the time, and it later proved to be the case, that it
was no "accident", but an attempt to get me involved in a cover-up by those
in the aforementioned wrong doing.
I still shudder to this day to think what would have happened had I
succumbed to the pressure ... ... and this was _before_ WaterGate. I was
only 27 at the time.
I can ONLY credit my actions to my parents for having provided a good
grounding, and some hard learned lessons, into right and wrong.
IMO, the latter is what is so sadly missing in this culture of ours.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 3/05/04
My wife and I were just talking about Martha. We surmise she will be
given a sentence of 500 hours of community service: demonstrating how to
make a bed with hospital corners.
dave
Leon wrote:
> IIRC 4 counts... From what I understand jail time is mandatory but a
> maximum of 5 years per count + up to $250,000 per count... She and her
> partner in crime must show up to a probation officer within 1 week for
> processing.
>
>
> "Bay Area Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Just read that Martha was found guilty on 6 counts! Now let's see if
>>she gets more than a slap on her wrist.
>>
>>dave
>>
>
>
>
Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
: hmm... I looked on google news and thought it was 6. anyway, 4 or 6,
: sound good to me, just because she is so arrogant...and rich <g>. Which
: is why they brought charges anyway, I guess; to make an example of
: someone well known.
As opposed to making an example of someone who did serious damage to
investors, like the Enron crew. Stwart is a scapegoat.
- Andy Barss
just looked at another news source which clearly says 4 counts. I knew
I could "count" on you, Leon. <g>
dave
Leon wrote:
> IIRC 4 counts... From what I understand jail time is mandatory but a
> maximum of 5 years per count + up to $250,000 per count... She and her
> partner in crime must show up to a probation officer within 1 week for
> processing.
>
>
> "Bay Area Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Just read that Martha was found guilty on 6 counts! Now let's see if
>>she gets more than a slap on her wrist.
>>
>>dave
>>
>
>
>
hmm... I looked on google news and thought it was 6. anyway, 4 or 6,
sound good to me, just because she is so arrogant...and rich <g>. Which
is why they brought charges anyway, I guess; to make an example of
someone well known. Not that I'd be adverse to finding her guilty if I
was a juror, mind you!
dave
Leon wrote:
> IIRC 4 counts... From what I understand jail time is mandatory but a
> maximum of 5 years per count + up to $250,000 per count... She and her
> partner in crime must show up to a probation officer within 1 week for
> processing.
>
>
> "Bay Area Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Just read that Martha was found guilty on 6 counts! Now let's see if
>>she gets more than a slap on her wrist.
>>
>>dave
>>
>
>
>
In article <1ga7zg1.rshiq61ad754gN%[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> mel <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Now that you've established that Willy wasn't the only one guilty of
> > committing a crime while in office
>
> What crime?
>
I'll spell this real slowly, so maybe you will pick up on it this
time: p-e-r-j-u-r-y
He lied to a grand jury while under oath. Now, for most folks, it
doesn't matter what the lie is about, if you are under oath and lie,
that is a prosecutable offense. However, in Bill's case, since the
media kept screaming how it was "only about sex" (which it wasn't, it
was about a pattern of behavior that up to that point, the left was
screaming bloody murder about: sexism and use of authority to incur
sexual favors) then lying about that was OK.
On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 22:21:21 GMT, Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>Just read that Martha was found guilty on 6 counts! Now let's see if
>she gets more than a slap on her wrist.
>
>dave
yawn.
Thomas J. Watson-Cabinetmaker (ret)
Real Email is: tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet
Website: http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1
"p_j" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1ga7yc3.7wgrjveglolcN%[email protected]...
>
> That reminds of Limbaugh, et al, who blathered about the Clinton "body
> list." Can you believe that there are actually people who believed that
> stuff?
>
Umm, are you denying the occurences of several plane crashes that happened
and were reported (not reported by Limbaugh) and the people killed who had
ties to the Clintons? Go ahead and deny something that happened, it isn't
me that it makes look uniformed.
>
> Hey, did you know that Bush made assassinations legal through executive
> order?
>
No I sure did not. Why don't you be a sport and back up your claim to the
world by providing a reference?
Frank
actually they found her guilty because she broke the law. The reason she
broke the law was she was rich and arrogant.
--
http://users.adelphia.net/~kyhighland
"Bay Area Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> hmm... I looked on google news and thought it was 6. anyway, 4 or 6,
> sound good to me, just because she is so arrogant...and rich <g>. Which
> is why they brought charges anyway, I guess; to make an example of
> someone well known. Not that I'd be adverse to finding her guilty if I
> was a juror, mind you!
>
> dave
>
> Leon wrote:
>
> > IIRC 4 counts... From what I understand jail time is mandatory but a
> > maximum of 5 years per count + up to $250,000 per count... She and her
> > partner in crime must show up to a probation officer within 1 week for
> > processing.
> >
> >
> > "Bay Area Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >
> >>Just read that Martha was found guilty on 6 counts! Now let's see if
> >>she gets more than a slap on her wrist.
> >>
> >>dave
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
"Tom Watson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 22:21:21 GMT, Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Just read that Martha was found guilty on 6 counts! Now let's see if
> >she gets more than a slap on her wrist.
> >
> >dave
>
>
> yawn.
...and yawn again.
"Edwin Pawlowski"wrote in message
>
> "p_j" wrote in message
> >
> > The real reason that lawyers are hated by modern conservatives is that
> > they represent individual rights.
> >
>
> Sleazy lawyers are despised by both liberals and conservatives alike.
They
> are interested in making money for themselves, not for their clients. The
> victim of an accident is merely the tool to be used.
>
> Sure there are some good lawyers, but too many are opportunists.
Can be succinctly summed up with the old saying; "One lawyer in a town will
starve to death, two and they'll both get rich".
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 3/05/04
Nope, most likely would go a Club Fed prison like the one at Eglin AFB
where they have tennis courts and access to a golf court. More like
confinement to a resort than jail.
Of course, you or I would get the max sentence and really do hardtime
somewhere instead of the cushy jails the "rich and famous" get sent to
John
On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 05:26:07 GMT, Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>Andy, can you imagine her doing hard time though? Probably a big fine,
>and maybe community service, instead.
>
>dave
>
>Andrew Barss wrote:
>
>> Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>> : hmm... I looked on google news and thought it was 6. anyway, 4 or 6,
>> : sound good to me, just because she is so arrogant...and rich <g>. Which
>> : is why they brought charges anyway, I guess; to make an example of
>> : someone well known.
>>
>> As opposed to making an example of someone who did serious damage to
>> investors, like the Enron crew. Stwart is a scapegoat.
>>
>> - Andy Barss
>>
You are right [as in correct ] as usual Frank, I heard that both the jury
and the judge were all republicans .Besides Martha has offered to bake a
cake for John [ one medal every two weeks ] Kerry at the convention. mjh
"Frank Ketchum" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "p_j" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:1ga6qdf.1lv7dhx11je13fN%[email protected]...
> >
> > > sound good to me, just because she is so arrogant...and rich <g>.
Which
> > > is why they brought charges anyway,
> >
> > She's being charged because she donated to democrats including hillary
> > clinton. The charges were such a reach that even business magazines had
> > articles on how dangerous and biased the prosecutions were.
> >
>
> Thanks, I needed a good laugh. She couldn't have been too closely
connected
> to the Clintons because she hasn't died in a mysterious airplane crash.
>
>
IIRC 4 counts... From what I understand jail time is mandatory but a
maximum of 5 years per count + up to $250,000 per count... She and her
partner in crime must show up to a probation officer within 1 week for
processing.
"Bay Area Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Just read that Martha was found guilty on 6 counts! Now let's see if
> she gets more than a slap on her wrist.
>
> dave
>
"Phil" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Covering up a wrong doing almost always get you in bigger
> trouble than deed itself would.
That's for sure!!! As a young boy, I found the above to be very true. It
took a few years but I finally learned. My Dad and the "Sisters of
Perpetual Discipline", who _unmercifully_ guided my development in parochial
school, made sure of that.
Was better to say, "I'm sorry Sister. I did not do my homework." Than to
say, "My little brother ate my homework." In both cases, I still had to do
the homework. In the later case, I also had to write on the black board 100
times, "I will not lie to Sister Mary Knuckle Smacker" (after having my
knuckles smacked with that thick, 18" handcrafted walnut ruler her Uncle in
the Black Forest made for her) And then still have to face the music when
Dad got home from work.
It was simpler to just do the homework in the first place.
Overall lesson learned--If you screw up, don't lie about it...better yet,
don't screw up!
DexAZ