View Full Version : OILGATE.....Dubya's Whitewater
10-06-2000, 06:46 PM
Wow - a multi-zillion dollar independent prosecutor investigation could have a field day with Dubya's "business" dealings. Vanity Fair and the New York Times people are digging up some dirty dirt on the morally superior candidate. His boasts about "experience in the private sector" and the bottom line may come back to bite him. So how did Dubya turn a $50,000 trust fund into a million bucks? Hmmmm....let's see.
He used his family name to get folks to invest in his "oil business." His partner, Russ Walker, sez, "I used to tell people George and I had an oil company together. Not true. We had a dry hole company together."
Vanity Fair: Bush always structured deals so the bank was repaid and he himself did fairly well, even as his investors almost ivariably did poorly. In January 1982, Phillip Uzielli, a New York investor and Princeton classmate of James Baker, one of Bush's father's closest friends and Reagan's chief of staff, gave Bush a $1 million infusion for 10 per cent of his company, which as a whole was worth less than $4000,000. The last time Uzielli talked to an interviewer was in 1991, when he said he, "had lost a lot of money...Things were terrible."
His partner sez Dubya had a different set of people for every deal. Eventually, he ran out of fish to bilk and went out of "business."
NEW YORK TIMES: He rased a total of $4.67 million from limited partners to drill for oil, while his company returned only $1.55 million to his investors. Their losses were cushioned by tax write-offs of up to 70 per cent for "intangible drilling costs."
So thats how Dubya handles the bottom line. And this guy wants to run our country?<P>
10-06-2000, 06:48 PM
Oops - typo. that should read $400,000.
10-06-2000, 06:53 PM
I thought there was nothing to Whitewater. Didn't we just spend millions of dollars to find out there was no "criminal" activity?!
- - - - - -
And on a related note...
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Kenneth Starr's former spokesman in the Monica Lewinsky probe was found not guilty on Friday of criminal contempt of court for lying about his role in news leaks during President Clinton's impeachment trial.
The Justice Department had asked a federal judge to find that Charles Bakaly, the former spokesman for independent counsel Starr, be held in contempt for lying in a sworn court declaration when he denied that he leaked secret information to the New York Times.
"The court concludes that the government has not proved its charges beyond a reasonable doubt and therefore the court finds that Mr. Bakaly is not guilty of criminal contempt," Chief U.S. District Judge Norma Holloway Johnson said in a written ruling.
[This message has been edited by TheFly (edited 10-06-2000).]
10-06-2000, 07:23 PM
Dream on Duck.
In the high stakes, high return world of speculative drilling, this is commonplace.
What you (or Vanity Fair ~ great source btw)are leaving out is that there is a very good chance that the investors faired well with the tax wright-offs.
I have lived in Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas just about my entire life and this sure sounds to me like normal business ~ but good try...
keep trying to defend your guys by claiming the other side 'is just as bad'...
[This message has been edited by Luzap (edited 10-06-2000).]
10-06-2000, 07:59 PM
Nice take. Funny how when something comes up for the other side it can be dismissed as "nothing serious" but for us it is supposedly catastrophic.
I also enjoyed Senator McCain blasting his own party for trying to kill this Firestone bill and putting more people's lives in danger just because of the money they get from the automobile companies. But yet Republicans are always right I suppose, no matter what. At least that's what Rush and his ilk would have you believe... http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/smile.gif
10-06-2000, 08:16 PM
Anybody can make up anything about anybody. You know this.
The fact is, of all the made up garbage spewed by the left, there have been few indictments and almost no convictions.
However, we're coming to the close of an administration that has literally set the record for indictments and convictions ~ all with a friendly Attorney General.
You can continue to keep your head in the sand, and you can continue to try and convince others, but it all comes out in the end ~ and your guys are exposed for what they are.
feeling slimey just discussing it...
[This message has been edited by Luzap (edited 10-07-2000).]
10-06-2000, 09:35 PM
Yes, they are exposed for what they are. Guys whose administration has reduced unemployment to an alltime low, increased the standard of living, and eliminated the deficit. And as the polls consistently show, that is what most Americans care about, despite the republican witch hunt. You guys can spew whatever garbage you want about how these guys suck and about how your guys have so called "integrity", it really does not wash. But hey, you got your opinion. More power to ya. http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/smile.gif http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/biggrin.gif http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/wink.gif http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/tongue.gif
[This message has been edited by Moose (edited 10-06-2000).]
10-06-2000, 10:02 PM
Moose - You can thank Congress whenever you are ready.
Knows where the real power is.
10-06-2000, 10:07 PM
Duck - Do you know that Gore not only has large holdings in Occidental Oil, but he actually supported their failure to pay the country of Bangledesh when several fires destroyed hundreds of villages there?
10-06-2000, 10:14 PM
To be honest, this crying about oil is just another partisan trick for the dems to scare you.
I pay 1.379 per gallon today. I paid 1.119 per gallon in 1982. That is an increase of less than 9% over almost 2 decades.
In 1982 I could have bought a NEW mid size car for $10,000. Using the same rate of inflation that car should be no more than $10,900 today - you can barely get a KIA for that, and even the pathetic Neons cost more than that.
A gallon of milk in 1982 was 1.49. Today it is over $2.00. At 9% it should only be 1.63.
Name anything mass used product that has increased only 9% over the last 20 years (not including electronics as they decrease in cost as technology advances).
Gasoline has been closely regulated and controlled by the govt since the 50's. If they are overcharging and attempting to gouge, then blame your current govt, right ALGORE?
[This message has been edited by KCWolfman (edited 10-06-2000).]
10-06-2000, 10:52 PM
Wow, Wolfman - how come your gas is so cheap? I pay $2 for regular and $2.20 for super. And the refinery is right across the Bay in Richmond - few transportation costs. I'm jealous....
10-06-2000, 11:42 PM
Luz - wouldn't you say that land speculation is a "high stakes" game in the same vein as oil speculation? That didn't seem to stop anybody from initiating a $60 million multi-year investigation. Don't say I didn't warn you about Oilgate.
Hey - D'ja ever wonder why Dubya makes so dang many verbal mistakes time and again? Says subliminable when he means subliminal? Tacular for tactical? Sez vile when he means viable? Turned "basis" into "basics" when he said "Reading is the basics of all learning." When referring to McCain said, "The senator...can't have it both ways. He can't take the high horse and then claim the low road."
Dyslexia runs in the family. The Barbara Bush Foundation grants monies to train teachers how to teach dyslexics. Nancy LaFevers, a Houston speech and language expert sez, "The errors you've heard Governor Bush make are consistant with dyslexia." Sue Horn, who has been diagnosing dyslexia for 25 years sez, "Bush is probably dyslexic, although he has probably never been diagnosed." Worse still, if this is the case, dyslexia and attention deficit disorder have a 30% crossover.
I sure hope Bush doesn't cause any international holocausts with his language problems. If he actually gets elected, lets just hope that he doesn't misuse the word "tactical" very often.
10-07-2000, 12:01 AM
First of all Duck, I live in Kansas City. Check with anyone else who lives here if you doubt me.
Secondly Premium does no more for your car than mid-grade. You are wasting your money.
Finally, you didnt address the point of either of my issues. Gore is in bed with the oil companies, too - at least Bush admits to his affiliation. And gasoline even at 1.899 (assuming that is the cost of low grade on the coast) is still in line with current inflation rates from the last huge jump in the 1970's to today.
10-07-2000, 01:30 AM
I know it hurts to admit the truth that this administration actually accomplished some good things. Give the credit to whoever you want. Spin away. <P>
10-07-2000, 03:16 AM
I had to come out of hiding to respond to your take. It's simple, if you are going to focus on the economy as a basis for electing a President get your facts straight. The current economy has been on the upswing for nearly nine years. WHO was the President nine years ago? Check out the facts.
Now, if you choose to make your judgements based on the economy fine. However, the role of the President is not to assure that your bottle is kept full so that your nipple won't go flat. I prefer to make my judgements on our elected officials in this manner; who will most likely uphold the Constitution of the United States and assure it's citizens of continued freedoms to speak, posses, assemble, LIVE (there's a good one, live,) in a manner that they choose, as long is it in not in violation of anothers right, and if it does violate anothers right, to make sure justice is upheld. This is their job.
Now, re-read that last paragraph and if you believe ANY part of it there is only one VIABLE choice in this election. (Key word, viable.) The opposition has demonstrated for nearly eight years their inability to govern in accordance with that philosophy.
In closing, there is a word for those who look to a higher controlling authority for their physical well being, it's called a socialist, wear the title proudly my friend.
[This message has been edited by Kurt Surber (edited 10-07-2000).]
10-07-2000, 03:31 AM
I love when Kurt comes out of hiding (even when he does so to me)
Puttin' on my game face!
10-07-2000, 07:52 AM
Are you sure you don't mean 1992? I mean i know that gas has gone up, but I didn't know it was that much that long ago. And if you do have the date correct, aren't there 10 years in there where republicans held office? This is why I, as a first time voter, am afraid to vote. I can do all the research I want but it always seems to come down to he said she said. I don't really trust any politicians, they are never able to do what they promise anyway, and anyone you talk to with allegiance to either party can only put the other side down.
10-07-2000, 08:49 AM
Im sorry, I dont see where money from this deal was siphoned into a political campaign or how a bank was defrauded and later failed causing tax payers to absorb the cost of the failed institution...
I mean, Vanity Fair, themselves pointed out that: Bush always structured deals so the bank was repaid.... Vanity Fair is hardly a shill for the right wing so Im not real sure the point of this article.
Moose: great mantra, sounds good doesnt it? Too bad it's BS. Try moving past the pre-programmed sound-byte dem responses and put some real fact behind your statements.
10-07-2000, 09:33 AM
DJAy - No, I mean 1982. I used that as my gauge as that was the year I graduated high school. So my original statements stands.... as well as my original challenge - Find one other mass consumed product (especially one that is supposedly limited) that has only increased 9% over 2 decades.
10-07-2000, 10:34 AM
Duck - Reply to #12?
10-07-2000, 10:50 AM
*yawn* Another programmed lib trying to sling mud at Bush for engaging in the oil business. What's next, blaming him for low ticket sales at Kaufman because he once owned the Rangers?
As Luz stated, the oil biz is high risk/high reward. I read once that the strike rate is around 20%. So of course money was lost by some and made by others. It's the natural ebb and flow of that business. The bank was paid back and no loans were defaulted so what's the beef? Oh I know what the beef is, it's another way to distract from Chinese money buying American elections, shaking down Buhddist nuns, and the constant blatent lies about everything and anything by algore.
Dyslexia?! Gawd man are you also going to say he's unfit due to male pattern baldness? Pathetic!
10-07-2000, 11:17 AM
What is ironic is that the left is always telling us that NO disability should restrict anybody from doing ANYTHING!
Even if he suffers from dyslexia, it is one of the least disruptive neurological disorders that exists. Overwhelmingly most dyslexics function at 100% capacity.
Duck, what's really IRONIC, however, is your pointing out Bush missusing certain words. It's ironic because Bush has done it ACCIDENTLY, whereas Clinton/Gore missuse words PURPOSELY.
It has been the Conservatives that have been saying for eight years now... WORDS MEAN THINGS!
you're a little late to the band wagon...
10-07-2000, 01:29 PM
Thanks for coming out of hiding.
"However, the role of the President is not to assure that your bottle is kept full so that your nipple won't go flat."
"there is a word for those who look to a higher controlling authority for their physical well being, it's called a socialist, wear the title proudly my friend."
LOL. Thou doth assume too much my friend. I'm certainly not worried about that. And it is funny every time a democrat brings up the economy that is the red flag the right uses. I'm not going to get into personal specifics here, but I'm making a good chunk of change out here in the high tech world in California, and if you look at the numbers I would probably monateraly benefit more under Bush's plan in the short term than Gore's targeted cuts.
I make my choice based on who I believe is better for the country. I make my choice based on who I believe is more competent. I make my choice based on who I believe is better equipped to lead this country forward here in the 21st century.
Now again we all have our beliefs on who is the better man to do this. I do not see Bush/Cheney and their policies and the policies that they have supported in the past as the best team to do this. Now we've all got our own philosophical differences but let's hold off on painting all democrats as people who want to suck more out of government. That is again, a very lame, shortsighted and flimsy view.
10-07-2000, 02:55 PM
"Now we've all got our own philosophical differences but let's hold off on painting all democrats as people who want to suck more out of government. "
It's not ok to pigeonhole all Democrats, but it's fair game to lump all Republicans together?
"When you're not the lead dog in the pack, the view is always the same"
10-07-2000, 03:07 PM
I have called specific people here on this thread what because they were republicans?
10-07-2000, 06:08 PM
Sorry, Wolfman. I wasn't questioning where you live or your take on gas prices. I was just amazed that gas is so much cheaper in your part of the country. I don't know why the heck its two bucks and up right here where the refineries are.
10-07-2000, 08:23 PM
It's called taxes.
you know, that thing the dems want us to pay more of?...
10-07-2000, 08:24 PM
Duck - Kansas City is historically low for gas prices.... I have lived in the Louisville Kentucky, New York NY, and Tampa Fl metropolitan areas and Kanas City beats them all hands down for cost of living ratios. Maybe if you didnt have so many liberals running the left coast your gas would be a little cheaper.
BTW - I appreciate your candor and honesty on the other political thread. Thanx
10-08-2000, 07:49 AM
Actually, the dry well business situation was not as rosy as you painted it. The bank DID go belly up. Investors DID lose money.
And the hardworking Joe's of America had to bail out the rich folks again with their tax dollars. Everybody lost but GW. He skimed off a million bucks of the investors money. Then his rich crony investors ripped off the American taxpayers by claiming 70% "intangible" expenses. You and I ended up footing the bill for Bush's dry well scheme.
Sounds a lot like the claims that started the $60 million dollar Whitewater investigation. I'm sure if the level of effort that was put into persecuting the Clintons was put into digging up dirt on Bush, we could have much more Bush-bashing material. If the level of inspection put into looking into Demo campaign finances was put into investigating Repub campaign finances, we could have more dirt as well. The notion that the millions of Demo supporters are all evil crooks and the Millions of Repub supporters are all haloed saints is just too black-and-white to be credible.
10-08-2000, 10:26 AM
Face it. The majority of people that are in leadership of your ideological position this last decade are unethical scoundrals.
You can try to defend them by saying, "the Repubs are just as crooked" as much as you want, but it won't change the facts.
There have been more indictments and convictions in the current Gore/Clinton administration than any in living memory.
The leaders of your party are corrupt.
live with it...
10-08-2000, 11:01 AM
No, Luz. I'm not saying that the Dems are a bunch of crooked and corrupt scoundrels. That is the picture that the Repubs in Congress used their majority to promote instead of doing their jobs. Sure, the horrendous smear campaign fooled some Americans. But luckily it was not too successful considering the time, effort, and (our) money the Repubs wasted in the hatchet job. I'll bet think for every American that bought the image the Repubs were selling, there is another American that got p!ssed off at their partisan extremist tactics.
Since I don't accept the caraciture of Demo evil and corruption the Repubs have attempted to foist on us, I also do not say the Repubs are "just as bad." Its just business as usual on both sides. Sure, they have some differences in their political philosophies. But to divide the two camps into good and evil is too simplistic.
10-08-2000, 01:40 PM
Yep what we have here is the perfect Democrat. Willing to say one thing one time and the complete opposite another, depending on what's better suited at the time.
Vanity Fair: Bush always structured deals so the bank was repaid
The bank DID go belly up. Investors DID lose money.
Ok Duck I give up which is it? Or perhaps we should devote a thread where you can debate yourself and your varying positions.
persecuting the Clintons
I literally hurt myself laughing when I read that one. If the Clintons had simply complied with the supeonas instead of stonewalling them this 'persecution' would have ended years sooner.
Also please explain to me why the 'most ethical administration' in history has set the record for criminal indictments of its members. Also explain why Congressman Lieberman spoke harshly of Slick Willy's conduct and now VP candidate doesn't.
BTW: Dry wells aren't a 'scheme' they're a fact of that business. I think you said you're in the tech business. Think of it as a failed dot com startup. Or are those risky GOP schemes as well? *L*
10-08-2000, 07:29 PM
Ck_In....Here's the hole in your logic:
Bush did structure his deals so the bank was repaid, and the bank did go belly up. The two are not mutually exclusive, came to pass, and are not conflicting. Your case looks good from a distance, though.
I would reply to your question about the "most ethical administration in history" but I don't know what you are refering to. Are your quotation marks attributing that statement to me?
10-08-2000, 07:35 PM
UD - The quote was by Clinton himself before he was elected to President and what he was planning to build when he was president.
vBulletin® v3.8.8, Copyright ©2000-2015, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.