Pffft, save your money, download the movie, if you /have/ to see it, and I can send you the Phil K Dick short story the movie is allegedly based on.

Rosie O'Donnel?

Bingo.

I said the same yesterday. He loves his kids SOOO much, he put them thru a divorce, forcing them to choose between their mother and him, AND he leaves them for months at a time to go shoot movies.

LESSER love has no man, than this.....

In pic #1 notice that his jaw is starting to migrate to the right and his eyes seem a bit too close together. The vector analysis confirms it: He's part flounder.

[b]9divdoc wrote:

Quote Minute Man3

Republicans are too blame for Arthur Andersons crime?
Criminals steal because they are hungry?
So I guess you would say Republicans cause crime?
ROFLMAO...[/b]


I must say when I read this I Rolled on the Floor an Laughed My Ass off to!

It would appear by your response that there are a number of things that factor in to this response that defentitly shows your lack of intellegence.

1. You must either be in high school or just recently graduated because you fail to see that with any cause there is an effect, and with many things there are consequeces with choices that people make.
or....

2. You either must be a very young adult or an older person that has not paid any attention to politics for the last 10 years?

The congress overturned a veto from clinton in the 1990's that effected the whole accounting community.

Know it is not the republicans or democrats fault that all this financial uncertainty is going on, you obviously failled to see that just because something is legal, it might not be the right thing to do, mainly because it lacks integrity.

Many companies use creative accounting practices to hide negative balances. Mainly because when a companie comes out with there quartely statements, or rumors flow that a certain companie is loseing money, it effects there stocks, and since CEO's, and CFO's have such huge amounts of stock options that range in value in the millions or sometimes billions of dollors, it is in there best interest financially to bend the rules and use creative accounting practices, not really careing or thinking about the adverse effect it would have on the people that are employed within the company, mainly because they are only thinking about themselves.

So it is not the republicans or democrats fault, they did have a hand in makeing it easier for companies to not have integrity, but it is ultimitely up to each CEO,CFO,Board of Directors, and accountants to make the choices and decisions that are ethical,moral, and show that they are integral people. Just because something might be legal, does not always make it out to be the best and the right thing to do. Something being legal is a moot point, what really is the point is what is ethical, and shows integrity. And Major companies need to be riened in because they have been getting away with alot of things that are not right.
The lines that are supposed to be drawn that seperate CEO's CFO's, accountants, and Boards of Directors has been blured and have been being crossed for years, there is not a system of checks and balances, mainly because people stand to gain or lose millions of dollors.


I am not against big business, or business in general, we need businesses to provide jobs so we can feed our families and live, but we need companies to use integrity in the finacial dealings.

So it is ultimately the CEO's and CFO's faults, not the republicans and democrats. Although the politicians made it alot easier for companies to bend the rules and make huge profits off of stock options.

Oh and people do steal to eat. It happens all the time.

MinuteMan3 -- sharp as a spoon.

So you're the kind of person who would also say that a woman walking downtown at night is at fault if she gets raped because "she made it so easy for the attacker", right?

[b] anti-gov-tinfoil-man wrote:

MinuteMan3 -- sharp as a spoon.

So you're the kind of person who would also say that a woman walking downtown at night is at fault if she gets raped because "she made it so easy for the attacker", right? [/b]

I am not sure were you would get this idea that I think like this, but if you must know of course not!

I think that people should feel safe to walk were ever they choose to walk at all hours of the day and night no matter what sex they are and not fear being attacked. But of course this is not the case in many cities in America.

If a women is raped it is not her fault, it is the person or persons that are commiting the act of violence that is at fault! No means No, and when a women says no, you should stop! No exceptions! This is were haveing moral character,integrity, self control, self restraint, a general care for other human beings,and a sense of right and wrong comes into play.A man who rapes a women is a person who obviously lacks any type of moral character, and definety shows a lack of concern for another human being, they are only thinking about themselves and doing what feels good to them. People who commit such acts should be dealt with by various serious means. I think our legal system is to easy on men who rape women, or even men who rape boys/men for that matter.

So I suppose the opposite of what you stated would be my opinion to be derived from all my responses concerning this thread, and I have no idea were you would even try to say that I think this way in which you are trying to say!

Personally I think you are a troll looking to stir up trouble.[:k]

I was referring to this:



It sounded like you were blaming the accounting guidelines instead of the dirty bastards who manipulated the numbers.

What was this?  Can you give some more details?

[b] anti-gov-tinfoil-man wrote:

It sounded like you were blaming the accounting guidelines instead of the dirty bastards who manipulated the numbers. [/b]

Unfortunetly it is because of the laxed accounting guidelines that allowed the dirty bastards to manipulate the numbers.The two go hand in hand. That is why I said that just because something might be "legal" it might not necessarily be the ethical,moral right thing to do.

There are laws that are legal that are very unethical that allow companies to hide loss of profits. One example of an accounting trick is to stretch out the depresiation of equipment say from 5 years to 8 years, thus providing another 3 years you can claim a piece of equipment as a tax break, but in reality you are going to have to spend the money in say 5-6 years to possibly either overhaul or fully replace a certain piece of equiptment because it is wearing out. Using just this one type of creative accounting you can hide lots of money that in reality was lost, because you can make up some of  the loss by claiming a tax credit that will give you money that can hide some of the actual loss.Then there is the whole issue about stock options.

There are so many more different ways to use creative accounting. I personally am not an accountant, but my wife is a credit manager for a very large and profitiable semi-conductor manufacturer in the North West and has explained some of these things to me that alot of compaines accountants,CFO's and CEO's use to hide losses because they are legal.Besides you can also just destroy records to hide losses to, although this is not legal, it goes on.

I saw a show on PBS called Frontline awhile back that went into some details about this whole issue. I remember alot of the things they were saying that went on in the 1990's and it was kinda a good refreshing history lesson. I had to admit for a PBS show it was pretty good. anyway here is a link that describes some of the things.

[url]http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/regulation/congress/index.html[/url]

[b] Reply to PRK [/b]

The answer to your question has to do with the tort reform bill that clinton vetoed back in 1995. The bill was called the "Private Securities and Litigation Reform Act of 1995".

There was a show on PBS awhile back that explained some of this stuff. Here is a link that gives some details on some of this accounting, and companies finacial messes, and how and which politicians put there noses in this mess back in the 1990's and why.

[url]http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/regulation/congress/index.html#2[/url]

I'm glad somebody else saw it.