The W
Views: 100264779
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
31.10.14 0503
The W - Current Events & Politics - Free Martha Stewart?
This thread has 85 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: 1 2 Next(1998 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (24 total)
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1277 days
Last activity: 1074 days
#1 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29
Noted Liberatarian candidate Harry Browne makes an interesting argument as to why Martha Stewart did nothing wrong. Basically, he aruges that insider trading really does not hurt anybody becasue, for example, the person that sold the stock to somebody who traded on inside information was selling their stock for their own reasons and they had nothing to do with your info. Same as the person who buys the stock from you for the same reason.

An interesting argument as it relates to business and governemnt regulation. One thing does remain true: Stewart will likely go to prison and Enron officials will not because Enron's guys have friends(on both sides of the aisle) and Martha Stewart does not.

(edited by Grimis on 5.6.03 1326)


"You will never get that TV show. You'll never, ever get the Republican TV show. The Writers Guild of America, my union, is at a minimum, 99 percent leftist liberal and, like me, socialist. And we don't know how to write it. We don't."
- Lawrence O'Donnell, former Capitol Hill aide; co-producer/executive story editor/writer for "The West Wing"; and, creator/Executive Producer of "Mister Sterling" on why Republicans and conservatives are "practically invisible" on TV during CNN's "Relibable Sources", 3/25.
Promote this thread!
vsp
Andouille








Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 3041 days
Last activity: 255 days
#2 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00
A different (but interesting) take on Martha, from John C. Dvorak (guest-blogging on BoingBoing; scroll down to the grey box).




"You may be wondering why I have been making so many references lately to Fox News. The reason is that it is now my cable news network of choice -- because if Iím going to watch the news and be lied to, I want it to be ridiculously obvious that I am being lied to." -- Center for an Informed America, Newsletter #34
redsoxnation
Scrapple








Since: 24.7.02

Since last post: 487 days
Last activity: 487 days
#3 Posted on
Who would have imagined when their IPO's went public on the same day in 1999 that Martha Stewart would be indicted for fraud before Vince McMahon.



I consider the switch from Pathetic to Loser to be a promotion.
godking
Chourico








Since: 20.10.02
From: Toronto

Since last post: 3913 days
Last activity: 3859 days
#4 Posted on
Basically, he aruges that insider trading really does not hurt anybody becasue, for example, the person that sold the stock to somebody who traded on inside information was selling their stock for their own reasons and they had nothing to do with your info.

The reason insider trading laws exist is because they prevent excessive stock manipulation and fraud. Not buying it.

That having been said, although I firmly believe that Martha Stewart's case is something of a show trial that will conveniently distract the public from much larger game (your Enrons and Worldcoms, the continued joke that is the SEC, et cetera), I can't say she doesn't deserve it. She's a member of the NYSE board of directors AND is a licensed stockbroker with a Series 7 license, and as such her behavior has to be above reproach. Even so, she probably could have slid past with just a slap on the wrist had she just admitted her error and paid a measly fine, but instead she decided on an idiotic cover-up scheme and lied blatantly to the feds AND basically treated the investigators on her case like they were her employees whom she could bully and fire. She's caused Martha Stewart Omnimedia to lose fifty percent of its value in the past six months and it's going to lose even more, almost assuredly - she's cost a lot of people a lot of money because she couldn't stop being a bitch for half a day. There are better people on which to waste sympathy.
Michrome
Head cheese








Since: 2.1.03

Since last post: 3840 days
Last activity: 2907 days
#5 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00
There have been plenty of Libertarians arguing in favor of legalizing insider trading for a long time now, but I don't see it happening. I think he makes very good points, though.
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1277 days
Last activity: 1074 days
#6 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29
To make things even more bizarre, Stewart case prosecutors say claim of innocence was a bid to inflate her company's stock price.



"You will never get that TV show. You'll never, ever get the Republican TV show. The Writers Guild of America, my union, is at a minimum, 99 percent leftist liberal and, like me, socialist. And we don't know how to write it. We don't."
- Lawrence O'Donnell, former Capitol Hill aide; co-producer/executive story editor/writer for "The West Wing"; and, creator/Executive Producer of "Mister Sterling" on why Republicans and conservatives are "practically invisible" on TV during CNN's "Relibable Sources", 3/25.
lazzzlo
Linguica








Since: 21.7.02
From: Cincinnati

Since last post: 4133 days
Last activity: 3939 days
#7 Posted on
Proving insider trading in a civil case requires showing only that a "preponderance of the evidence" implicates the defendant. Convicting someone of insider trading in a criminal case requires proof "beyond a reasonable doubt."

That is an interesting twist...I wonder if Martha is being used as a test case for bigger fish. You always have to first establish your point.


lazzz



"Dawn comes soon enough for the working class".

"Don't look at me, I'm not your kind...I'm Rael"!

VYARZERZOMANIMORORSEZASSEZANSERAREORSEZ?
The Vile1
Lap cheong








Since: 4.9.02
From: California

Since last post: 2020 days
Last activity: 1752 days
#8 Posted on
Personally I think some jail time in minimum security prison could do Martha Stewart some good. Maybe she could liven the place up a bit, put up some new wallpaper schemes, change the menu, grow some roses, etc.

An interesting notion I've heard discussed before. Even though she's a liberal and supports the democratic party, many feminists really hate Martha Stewart for showing women how to be better homemakers, how to cook, decorate, etc., not really going along with the feminist elite mantra...Any thoughts?




"Just a humble bounty hunter, ma'am."
-Spike Spiegel
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1277 days
Last activity: 1074 days
#9 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29
It's simple. Martha doesn't advance the agenda, so she is evil. I wish it were more complicated than that.



"Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be very carefully used and that definite safety rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible."
- Sen. Hubert H. Humphrey, 1960
godking
Chourico








Since: 20.10.02
From: Toronto

Since last post: 3913 days
Last activity: 3859 days
#10 Posted on
Even though she's a liberal and supports the democratic party, many feminists really hate Martha Stewart for showing women how to be better homemakers, how to cook, decorate, etc., not really going along with the feminist elite mantra...Any thoughts?

I'd like to find some documentation, any documentation, of this. Catherine McKinnon doesn't count.
Michrome
Head cheese








Since: 2.1.03

Since last post: 3840 days
Last activity: 2907 days
#11 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00
It's clearly evidenced by the way NOW only stands up for certain women (Anita Hill), but is nowhere to be found when it does not suit their political agenda (Juanita Broadrick, Paula Jones). Nancy Skinner, a liberal feminist talk-show host basically admitted this the other night in an interview on the Neil Cavuto show.
MoeGates
Andouille








Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 9 days
Last activity: 1 day
#12 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.28
Wow. Perhaps you can hook them up with all the conservative interest groups that gave Bill Clinton a hard time for his daliences (well in advance of Lewinskygate), yet overlooked extra-marital daliences by the likes of Newt Gingrich, Bob Barr, Orrin Hatch (and I kind of like Orrin Hatch) and the like. Political interest groups supporting politicians who advance their agenda, and attacking those who don't? Shocking!

It's simple. Martha doesn't advance the agenda, so she is evil. I wish it were more complicated than that.

My parents are big liberals love Martha Stewart. To tell you the truth, some liberals probably don't like Martha because she's got a ton of money, rather than because of how she made it. Which strangly enough, seems to be why some conservatives don't like her either.



"I'm sorry, I didn't think I was going to talk about 'man on dog' with a United States Senator. It's sort of freaking me out."


Associated Press interview with Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA), 04-07-2003.
PalpatineW
Lap cheong








Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2838 days
Last activity: 2680 days
AIM:  
#13 Posted on | Instant Rating: 9.00
Orrin Hatch cheated on his wife? Damn. Orrin was never my favorite guy politically, but he comes off as a man of integirty, almost. Bob Barr, on the other hand, is just insane.

And hell, I love Martha Stewart, Democrat though she may be. As far as everyone else hating her, well, I think the general mood of the public is unforgiving when it comes to CEOs with a whiff of impropriety about them.



Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1277 days
Last activity: 1074 days
#14 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29

    Originally posted by MoeGates
    To tell you the truth, some liberals probably don't like Martha because she's got a ton of money, rather than because of how she made it.

Which does to an extent prove my point.

Incidentally, I have never heard of Orrin Hatch being caught cheating...



"Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be very carefully used and that definite safety rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible."
- Sen. Hubert H. Humphrey, 1960
Nate The Snake
Liverwurst








Since: 9.1.02
From: Wichita, Ks

Since last post: 3756 days
Last activity: 3226 days
AIM:  
#15 Posted on

    Originally posted by MoeGates
    My parents are big liberals love Martha Stewart. To tell you the truth, some liberals probably don't like Martha because she's got a ton of money, rather than because of how she made it. Which strangly enough, seems to be why some conservatives don't like her either.


I don't like her because she comes off as smug, controlling, and completely fake. I see her on TV, and I can practially hear her teeth grinding together with the effort of willing everything around her to be perfect. The fact that she's rich is more a cause for disappointment than anger, at least for me.



Kansas-born and deeply ashamed
The last living La Parka Marka

"They that can give up essential liberty to gain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
godking
Chourico








Since: 20.10.02
From: Toronto

Since last post: 3913 days
Last activity: 3859 days
#16 Posted on
Which does to an extent prove my point.

An unqualified assertion "proves your point". Check.
Michrome
Head cheese








Since: 2.1.03

Since last post: 3840 days
Last activity: 2907 days
#17 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00
What documentation do you want? NOW doesn't exactly put position papers out on things like this. It's just obvious that if this was, say, Katie Couric, feminist groups would be making a lot more noise.
cactuspete
Blutwurst








Since: 22.9.02
From: Parts Unknown

Since last post: 4140 days
Last activity: 4139 days
#18 Posted on
Most of the Martha Stewart shaudenfreude stems from the fact that she is a successful powerful independent woman. As progressive as our society claims to be, women like Stewart are not embraced. This is why Hillary is still with Bubba. If she had left him, she'd get the same treatment. This way she can be repackaged and appear as a sympathetic victim. As long as she covers up her black demonic soul, she'll make a run in 2008.





The above post has been verified as 100% accurate.
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong








Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1323 days
Last activity: 89 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#19 Posted on
I actually think she is hated for the complete opposite reason. It is true she is independant and powerful, but look for what she is known for. Teaching a primarily female audience to be great homemakers.

Martha Stewart is an enigma to say the least, but I really think she is despised because she encourages women, working or no, to make a nice home. And feminists HATE that.







Still on the Shelf #12 - Strangers in Paradise
Big Bad
Scrapple








Since: 4.1.02
From: Dorchester, Ontario

Since last post: 12 hours
Last activity: 5 hours
#20 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.54
And to think all of this happened AFTER Ana Gasteyer left SNL. Such bad timing.

Is there such thing as an honest multi-millionaire CEO?



Over 1350 posts and still never a Wiener of the Day!

In the issues of December 16th, 2000 to November 10th, 2001, we may have given the impression that George W. Bush had been legally and duly elected president of the United States. We now understand that this may have been incorrect, and that the election result is still too close to call. The Economist apologizes for any inconvenience.
--- The Economist, 11/17/01
Pages: 1 2 Next
Pages: 1 2 NextThread ahead: Little Big Brother
Next thread: NYT on the "mobile bioweapon factories"
Previous thread: News of the woild
(1998 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
Sounds to me like the coach made his cuts with the idea of booting the 'street ballers' off the team, preferring players that could dribble, pass, run plays, shoot jumpers, play defense. Stuff like that. Just a guess on my part.
The W - Current Events & Politics - Free Martha Stewart?Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.141 seconds.