Free Martha

[shereads]

It would be cool but then if things didn't go Bush's way we'd probably have to wait through months of investigating faulty servers not to mention his claim that the voter's with carpal tunnel misclicked in fits of pain and on and on until the electoral college finally decided that....

whoa taking a step back I realize I'm way way bitter
on a related note I almost misspelt bitter and with the typo it read butter.

There was a trial run of the new high-tech, idiot-resistant voting machines in Fort Lauderdale recently, and a TV station challenged a hacker to crash the system and wipe out the recorded votes. It took him about three minutes.

 

[destinie21]

There was a trial run of the new high-tech, idiot-resistant voting machines in Fort Lauderdale recently, and a TV station challenged a hacker to crash the system and wipe out the recorded votes. It took him about three minutes.

If we've learned nothing from the Bush reign...er um that is term it's that nothing is idiot-resistant. Clearly the TV station misunderestimated the power of the idiot.

 

[Guest]

 

[shereads]

Can someone explain this tome. My broker calls and say, by the way, the board member of Consolidated Dirt are dumping all thier shares.

What the heck do they expect me to do? Go OH boy, that was a bad investment. I guess i'll wait till my shares aren't worth anything to sell. Gimme a break.

As to lying to government regulators, I got news for them, it isn't illegal. Not unless you are under oath or submit an affidavit.

-Colly

Precisely.

This bears no resemblance to what happened at Enron or at Dubya's company, where the directors were lying to stock holders to enrich themselves. When I first heard Martha Stewart had been arrested, I thought she'd done something similar with her own company's stock - manipulating the price by producing phony figures for investors. When I learned that she was being prosecuted for taking her broker's advice, I didn't get it at all. What kind of idiot would NOT sell under those circumstances? It's an "insider" trade only because she knew some of those people, and she's being made an example because she once held a broker's license and knows the rules, and because she's famous.

Once the charge of inside trading was dropped for lack of evidence, the prosecutors of this case must have been so addicted to television cameras and press interviews that they couldn't let it go. So she's charged with giving conflicting explanations of what she did. Essentially, she's charged with something GWB did, when he gave three conflicting explanations for his failure to file with the SEC when he was on the board of Harken Energy and dumped his stock just before the first Gulf War. Except that he was in charge of the company; she was just a minor stockholder.

In a country where the highest office in the land is held by someone who was given a get-out-of-jail-free card for insider trading and lying to investigators, an expensive trial to make an example of anyone is too ironic for words.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

If we've learned nothing from the Bush reign...er um that is term it's that nothing is idiot-resistant. Clearly the TV station misunderestimated the power of the idiot.

Idots are like fools. You can't make anything fool proof as they will promptly develop a better fool. The same with making something idiot proof.

Speaking of foolish, where has this machismo driven concept of challenging people to come screw you over come from?

-Colly

 

[Guest]

, where has this machismo driven concept of challenging people to come screw you over come from?

From dickheads?

Perdita

 

[Svenskaflicka]

Good point. Cheers!

Wonder what Martha would have to say about the etiquette behind:

LICK IT! SLAM IT! SUCK IT!

Just a thought.

~lucky

I think after spending time in jail, she'll know all about that.

 

[lucky-E-leven]

I think after spending time in jail, she'll know all about that.

Funny image, Flicka. But I doubt MS will see any time in jail. But one never knows about these things. My guess would be large fines and a good bit of community service.

~lucky

 

[Guest]

 

[pop_54]

Hmmm

Never heard of the tart, who is she??

Sounds familiar though, nick some money, a large lump of it that is, and you're damned to eternity. Fry the bitch, fuck her with a Christmas tree and Fry her, drag her through the streets naked behind a white charger, then Fry the bitch.

Catch some little shit beating an old woman half to death for her £2 savings, and Oh dear, can't punish him, he had a terrible childhood, his mummy ripped his Teddy Bear up when he was a baby. Oh no, send him to a special school, send him on fucking holiday, buy him a car, help him change his name so the nasty relatives of the old lady can't rip his worthless fucking head off and shove it up his arse.

Same for paedo's, poor unfortunate chaps, that filthy little 8 yr old whore really teased him and made him do it. Poor chap, it's the hormones you know, can't punish him for just being a bit naughty like that. Apologise to him and give him 5 minutes in jail, then let him out so he can do it again. Lock up the father of the child for life though for daring to hack the peado's bollocks off with a rusty knife in retribution.

All I can say is, this Martha wos-er-fat-face should be given a pat on the back for initiative, not hounded through the courts, jeez, on trial for selling some shares at a sensible price. What the fuck.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Re: Hmmm

Never heard of the tart, who is she??

Sounds familiar though, nick some money, a large lump of it that is, and you're damned to eternity. Fry the bitch, fuck her with a Christmas tree and Fry her, drag her through the streets naked behind a white charger, then Fry the bitch.

Catch some little shit beating an old woman half to death for her £2 savings, and Oh dear, can't punish him, he had a terrible childhood, his mummy ripped his Teddy Bear up when he was a baby. Oh no, send him to a special school, send him on fucking holiday, buy him a car, help him change his name so the nasty relatives of the old lady can't rip his worthless fucking head off and shove it up his arse.

Same for paedo's, poor unfortunate chaps, that filthy little 8 yr old whore really teased him and made him do it. Poor chap, it's the hormones you know, can't punish him for just being a bit naughty like that. Apologise to him and give him 5 minutes in jail, then let him out so he can do it again. Lock up the father of the child for life though for daring to hack the peado's bollocks off with a rusty knife in retribution.

All I can say is, this Martha wos-er-fat-face should be given a pat on the back for initiative, not hounded through the courts, jeez, on trial for selling some shares at a sensible price. What the fuck.

Pop, I know you are being sarcastic but that closely parallels the liberal attitude toward crime and punishment. Personally, I am somewhat liberal on most issues but NOT on that one. I strongly favor lengthy incarceration and application of the death penalty in some cases.

This has nothing to do with MS who, in my opinion, did nothing wrong. If I were on the jury I could mail my not-guilty vote in. So far as lying to a government official, if she did, more power to her. Everybody should lie to politicians as much as possible. Even if we did, they would still outlie us.

 

[SlickTony]

I've never cared much for Martha; I've often felt that she was an emanation from the Dark Force sent to make us ordinary non-duck-gilding people feel inadequate, but I do think she's getting a raw deal. She's no insider; she's a New Jersey girl who came up from practically nothing and made good. After she's served her little time in jail, assuming she does, or done her community service, the real insiders, those who've rigged the whole game, including the tax structure, to ensure that their assets grow, like oysters in a bed, without them doing a damn thing for it, will continue to conduct business as usual.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Apparently I was wrong. marth found guilty on all counts.

-Colly

 

[SlickTony]

Well, she can still appeal; and even if she does go to jail, she'll probably end up going to some Federal Jail Lite like Danbury; and if she gets 20 whole years, I'll be surprised, and if she ends up serving all of them, I'll be even more so.

Course, I did read an article in Business Week a while back to the effect that all these stock fraud people ought not merely to go to jail, but jail jail--with bars on the cells and big guys hanging out by the door of the weight room going "Mmmmm..." and I'm not sure that isn't a good idea.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

She wasn't convicted of anything to do with stock manipulation. There was so little evidence that the govt. dropped the charges of anything involving stocks, including the charge of insider trading. She was convicted of obstruction of justice for lying to the government about why she sold her stock.

-Colly

 

[Guest]

 

[SlickTony]

I would prefer to see her fined and do some significant community service over a protracted period of time that would actually benfit society.

I agree with you, Lime. She is a little, little fish compared so so many of them--however, the big fish are probably buying our government behind the scenes and can't be touched.

And that reminds me of another thing to rant about--the Fastow deal. If the likes of you and I did something we had to go to jail for, we'd have to scramble to sign guardianship of our kids over to whichever of our relatives would have them--which, in the case of my fifteen-year-old son, would be either my mother and his big sister, or his rich uncle in Pompano Beach. But the Fastows managed to cut a deal so that they could go to prison serially, so that their kids (and was there no auntie or mamaw and papaw to go to?) would not have to spend a skinny minute in foster care.

 

[kellycummings]

Fact is, she broke the law and got caught. Makes no difference if she is big or little. Sure, there are bigger fish to fry but you can't let small crimes go unchecked just to chase to big ones. The media did make a big deal of it but you can't really blame them for it, she is Martha Stewart after all. I don't faul the government for that.
I also don't fault them for pursuing her like they did. She's guilty and they prosecuted, just what they are supposed to do. Yes, some get away with it but that's the case with almost anything.
On a personal note, I own a signifigant number of shares in several companies and if anyone in those companies gets busted for insider trading, securities fraud, whatever, I'm going to want them burned at the fucking stake for stealing from me!
What she did was not common sense or excusable in any way. If someone were to give you foolproof plans for robbing a bank and you knew that with those plans you would make a million dollars and probably not get caught would you still do it? If you do then you are breaking the law, whether it made sense to take advantage of the opportunity or not. Same with her. She was given an opportunity to save a loss on her stocks and even though it seems to make sense it's still illegal. She knew that, as did the other people involved. They deserve to be punished. I find it quite funny that the stock they were so afraid of is now making money.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Fact is, she broke the law and got caught. Makes no difference if she is big or little. Sure, there are bigger fish to fry but you can't let small crimes go unchecked just to chase to big ones. The media did make a big deal of it but you can't really blame them for it, she is Martha Stewart after all. I don't faul the government for that.
I also don't fault them for pursuing her like they did. She's guilty and they prosecuted, just what they are supposed to do. Yes, some get away with it but that's the case with almost anything.
On a personal note, I own a signifigant number of shares in several companies and if anyone in those companies gets busted for insider trading, securities fraud, whatever, I'm going to want them burned at the fucking stake for stealing from me!
What she did was not common sense or excusable in any way. If someone were to give you foolproof plans for robbing a bank and you knew that with those plans you would make a million dollars and probably not get caught would you still do it? If you do then you are breaking the law, whether it made sense to take advantage of the opportunity or not. Same with her. She was given an opportunity to save a loss on her stocks and even though it seems to make sense it's still illegal. She knew that, as did the other people involved. They deserve to be punished. I find it quite funny that the stock they were so afraid of is now making money.

She wasn't convicted of anything to do with stock manipulation. There was so little evidence that the govt. dropped the charges of anything involving stocks, including the charge of insider trading. She was convicted of obstruction of justice for lying to the government about why she sold her stock.

-Colly

Which brings up the question: How much time did Bill Clinton get in the slammer for lying under oath, which is a much more serious crime than thus one?

 

[kellycummings]

She wasn't convicted of anything to do with stock manipulation. There was so little evidence that the govt. dropped the charges of anything involving stocks, including the charge of insider trading. She was convicted of obstruction of justice for lying to the government about why she sold her stock.

-Colly

Which brings up the question: How much time did Bill Clinton get in the slammer for lying under oath, which is a much more serious crime than thus one?

Lying about why she sold it is the same to me. Sure, it 's not the same crime but obviously she's hiding something. I don't care anyway, my whole point was that she broke the law and deserves whatever she gets. Also, just to get picky, the charge was never insider trading, it was securities fraud. Not a big difference but not quite the same either.
Clinton should have been punished. I don't disagree with that at all. I did like him and still think his personal life was his own but that's a matter of opinion. The president is not above the law, even small laws. Yes, they will get away with it more often than others and it's not fair but that is an unfortunate fact of almost any government.

 

[AngeloMichael]

One detailed Martha must have missed is that the name of her lawyer, Robert Morvillo, is an anagram for Lord Voldemort?

Silly Martha, don't you know? Voldemorte always loses in the end.

 

[kellycummings]

One detailed Martha must have missed is that the name of her lawyer, Robert Morvillo, is an anagram for Lord Voldemort?

Silly Martha, don't you know? Voldemorte always loses in the end.

I always did think she was a Death Eater.

 

[shereads]

She wasn't convicted of anything to do with stock manipulation. There was so little evidence that the govt. dropped the charges of anything involving stocks, including the charge of insider trading. She was convicted of obstruction of justice for lying to the government about why she sold her stock.

-Colly

Which brings up the question: How much time did Bill Clinton get in the slammer for lying under oath, which is a much more serious crime than thus one?

Good God. There are two basic Republican responses for news of injustice: "Look what Clinton did!" or "It's necessary because of the War on Terror." It doesn't bother you that you elected a president who did exactly waht Ken Lay did at Enron and got away with it - with help from an SEC chairman who'd been appointed by Bush I? And who assigned an investigator to GWB's case who had assisted GWB with his purchase of the Texas Rangers? A purchase he made with his profits from the unreported sale of his Harken stock? After he sat on a 3-man committee who directed the company as it deceived new investors by cooking its books?

If telling conflicting stories about a stock sale was enough to convict the Dominatrix of Domesticity, and the president has three different explanations on record for his failure to report the Harken sail to the SEC, what train of thought leads you to Bill Clinton? And why not Hillary too?

 

[kellycummings]

Good God. There are two basic Republican responses for news of injustice: "Look what Clinton did!" or "It's necessary because of the War on Terror." It doesn't bother you that you elected a president who did exactly waht Ken Lay did at Enron and got away with it - with help from an SEC chairman who'd been appointed by Bush I? And who assigned an investigator to GWB's case who had assisted GWB with his purchase of the Texas Rangers? A purchase he made with his profits from the unreported sale of his Harken stock? After he sat on a 3-man committee who directed the company as it deceived new investors by cooking its books?

If telling conflicting stories about a stock sale was enough to convict the Dominatrix of Domesticity, and the president has three different explanations on record for his failure to report the Harken sail to the SEC, what train of thought leads you to Bill Clinton? And why not Hillary too?

Clinton is just an easy target for almost anyone. His screw ups were so blatant that people always point to him when discussing this sort of thing.

 

[shereads]

Clinton is just an easy target for almost anyone. His screw ups were so blatant that people always point to him when discussing this sort of thing.

And he'd be reelected in a landslide if he could legally run for a third term.