Fark has very funny things to say about the lynching of the republi-commie Martha Stewart by the democra-commies:

Whitefire_Zero:
GIVE HER THE CHAIR!!!!

/the cute one with the pink floral patterns


MarquisdeSad:
How do you make Martha Stewart scream twice?
Boink her in the butt then wipe your wang on the curtains.

StrikitRich:
Guess she's gonna show her fellow inmates how to properly toss a salad.

caliban_02:
God damn it. This is completely and totally unjustified. Martha Stewart is annoying show-host, not a criminal.

"Oh, wow, you made a successful cancer treatment drug, but we didn't approve it, and you tried to cut your losses? Go to jail! By the way, we approved your drug!"

"Oh look, you created a huge successful company, employing thousands of people and creating an example for successful female entrepreneurs, but you lied to save 40k? Go to jail!"

This is disgusting. Can anyone identify one single person who was harmed by the "crimes" of Sam Waksal, Peter Bacanovic or Martha Stewart?


maffick:
Ken Lay's Collateral

This fall, as Enron was going down, Chairman Ken Lay was desperately trying to raise cash.

In a meeting with top bankers, Lay presented a list of all the collateral the company had for a new loan. There were pipelines, contracts, receivables, a half-built plant in India -- quite a list.

But the bankers told him it wasn't enough: "Isn't there ANYTHING else you own that is fully paid for, that you can put up?"

And no one has seen Dick Cheney since.

NutznGum:
Scapegoat. This was over a few hundred grand. What about the billions that were pissed away by Enron? Why isn't Ken Lay hanging from the highest tree?


yellow fever:
[pic of ken lay]
hahahaha, I stole 10 billion dollars and i'm free, god bless america!!


NationwideClyde:
I still think the entire thing is ridiculous. Laws against "insider information" are a joke. Information is information. Deal with it.

caliban_02:
thetejon
Doesn't matter who it hurts. She broke the law, and deserves to be punished.


So you believe in having laws that prohibit things that don't hurt anyone? I see.

ATostig
Yep. Everybody who trades the stock market without inside knowledge.

I see. So, for example, I trade on the stock market. How was I harmed? I didn't see my portfolio decline, except in the areas where the outlook of companies is dropping because of the expectation of excessive corporate governance laws.

Tigger
It's a crime because if you let it happen the free-market structure falls apart - so ultimately I can identify someone. You.

I've always found it ironic that people think we need economically intrusive laws to "protect" the Free Market. Do you know what "free market" means?

And secondly, why aren't you people reading the article? She wasn't convinced of insider trading. She was convicted of lying about a charge of insider trading that WAS THROWN OUT.

RTFA. She was charged with making false statements, conspiracy to obstruct justice, and obstructing justice. But since she wasn't on trial for insider trading and the fraud charge had been thrown out, can she really be obstructing justice, when she was innocent? Don't you see the problem here? I'm not asking you if it's legal or illegal, that's not the point. I'm asking if you if it SHOULD be illegal.


ProgrammerCat:
Lying to the government? That's not a crime; that's an act of self-defense on the part of a rational individual!

RockIsDead:
Lying to the government? That's not a crime; that's an act of self-defense on the part of a rational individual!

No, that would be 'keeping quiet'. Lying is different.

Mackerel-97:
Lying to the government? That's not a crime; that's an act of self-defense on the part of a rational individual!

She got nailed for pretty much the same thing they let ol' crazy Bill get away with a few years back.

Tigger:
I've always found it ironic that people think we need economically intrusive laws to "protect" the Free Market. Do you know what "free market" means?


Yes I do. Free market requires many laws to protect it. Laissez faire doesn't mean less laws. It actually means in some cases more. For example we are currently short on laws that define property rights in the case of negative production externalities such as air and water pollution. These laws are needed to create a free market.

carrion_luggage:
The Great Kharmic Hammer done squashed her flat.

Webgrunt:
Mackerel-97

She got nailed for pretty much the same thing they let ol' crazy Bill get away with a few years back.

Bill didn't lie! He simply enhanced the truth.

No, it was simply a misunderstanding. They asked him if he had sex with Monica. By Bill's definition of sex, he had sex only with Monica's dress.


itsdan :
Lying to the government is a crime...

Lying to the people is a presidency...

arentol:
Does anybody else find it funny that the same people who rail against the unfairness of lowering taxes for the rich often defend people like Martha Stewart when they do things like this?

It's like if someone is rich, NOT famous, and not a criminal then they are evil money-grubbing bastards who don't deserve to live... But if they are rich, famous, AND a criminal, then they are wonderful people who made a minor mistake and should be forgiven. WTF?

caliban_02:
CapnWacky
why are there laws against fraud in general instead of just contractual clauses?

Fraud laws are the enforcement of contractual clauses. What's your point? I don't think there should be laws against inaccurate advertising either, except that if your contract to purchase said product makes claims about its effectiveness.

WillyPete
And by the way caliban, the very existence of the SEC and these Federal laws owes to the fact that the privately held exchanges couldn't or wouldn't police the very people who pay them to be listed.

Ah, so you think the government took over regulatory control of the Stock Exchange to ensure fairness for all? Wow. Do you also believe that we imprisoned thousands of Japanese in camps to protect us from their spying? Do you think the government should take over control of any community or exchange that doesn't operate in the best interests of society?

JohnBigBootay
I was harmed. I own stock and participate daily in the stock market. Bullschiat like she and her brokers pulled undermine the faith that 'regular people' like me have in the stock market. If regular people don't participate, we don't have a stock market. So, the answer to your question is, Yes I can, ME.

So you're saying Martha's action destroyed your faith in the stock market? You don't note any inconsistencies in that statement? Why should you have faith in the stock market? Should we prosecute anyone else who destroys your faith in an institution? I'm sorry, I can see how a private exchange should have rules as to conduct, but I don't see how the government should be involved. If someone cheats at baseball, they should be fined and booted from the game, and whatever earnings they got taken. Why should they go to jail?

caliban_02:
Beefaroni
Not just that...when the privately held exchanges couldn't police their own members, it set off a worldwide Depression.

You believe that? You believe that evil free market forces focusing on greed and self-interest destroyed the economy, and the benevolent government under the Hero FDR rode in, enacted all this legislation that granted the government unprecedented power to control the economy and people, that may have violated the constitution, but saved the economic day? Wow.

You don't think the government's poor fiscal policies or protectionist tariffs had just a little bit to do with it?
You didn't notice that the economy didn't pick up appreciably until the war started? You don't think the enactment of the income tax only a few years earlier had anything to do with it? Read a real history book on the subject. You can tell which ones are real, because they don't treat John Maynard Keynes like Jesus.

Man, it's almost like the government wrote the history books where you learned all this..... wait....

It's amazing how people say "look at this crap the government's trying to sell us" without examining all the crap you've bought in the past.

Doll_Parts:
CROWD: Burn her! Burn! Burn her!...
BEDEVERE: Quiet! Quiet! Quiet! Quiet! There are ways of telling whether she is a witch.
CROWD: Tell us! Tell us!...
BEDEVERE: Tell me. What do you do with witches?
CROWD: Burn! Burn them up! Burn!...
BEDEVERE: And what do you burn apart from witches?
VILLAGER #1: More witches!
VILLAGER #2: Wood!
BEDEVERE: So, why do witches burn?
VILLAGER #3: B--... 'cause they're made of... wood?
BEDEVERE: So, how do we tell whether she is made of wood?
VILLAGER #1: Build a bridge out of her!
BEDEVERE: Does wood sink in water?
VILLAGER #2: No, it floats! It floats!
VILLAGER #1: Throw her into the pond!
CROWD: The pond! Throw her into the pond!




Breaking Update: Fox news just said that stopping attacking CEOs would make socks (also stocks) go up.
Bad Commie: Burn the witches! Burn them! Burn Burn Burn Burn!

P.S. Bad Commie is pro-crime AND pro lynching, so don't be giving me crap. However, I don't approve of spending 10 million dollars to fix a 5,000 dollar crime. That's called government stealing, AND THAT DESERVES A LYNCHING.


More on communist lynchings by the old guy:

Well, the Martha Stewart verdict is in, and the conclusion I draw from it is that if you talk to government investigators and cooperate in any way, you are an idiot.

It used to be that perjury consisted of lying under oath. You might have a social obligation to be truthful, but legally if you didn't swear to it, you could say just about anything you wanted, including to the government. It used to be that you signed documents warranting that what you said was true "under penalty of perjury." Now, apparently, it doesn't matter if you're sworn, if you are talking to an Imperial Storm Trooper -- excuse me, government agent -- you can be prosecuted for not telling the truth, even if what you are doing is trying to prevent embarrassment.

For heaven's sake if you have some stock and your broker tells you that the owner of the company is selling in a panic, what would you do? Hang on to it? And if the owner is an old friend, you might well concoct some other reason for selling. It wasn't illegal to sell it anyway. But, clearly, the thing to do if the government asks you for cooperation now, is to have a total lapse of memory, and always assert your Fifth Amendment rights to boot. To heck with cooperation! You don't remember and if you did remember you might incriminate yourself. Go to blazes.

When I was a lad, it wasn't that way, and people thought they had a civic duty to help the government. After all, it was our government, not "the" government, and government people were us, not them. That's a myth increasingly hard to sustain, and I am not at all sure we are better for the change.

What's that you wanted to know? Sorry don't remember, and if I did remember it might incriminate me to talk about it. Please go now


Aggie joke:

Mr. and Mrs. Boudreaux were eating their first meal with their son, T. Boy, on his return from college on vacation.

"Tell us T. Boy", asked Mr. Boudreaux, "What have you learned at college?"

"Oh a lot of things" said T. Boy, as he recited his courses. "Then", he concluded, "I also studied logic".

"Logic", said Mr. Boudreaux, "What is that?"

"It's an art of reasoning ", said T. Boy.

"The art of reasoning?" said Mr. Boudreaux, "What is that?"

"Well ", replied T. Boy, "Let me give you a demonstration. How many chickens are on the dish Father?"

"Two", said Mr. Boudreaux.

"Well I can prove there are three", said T. Boy. Then he sticks his fork in one and said, "That is one, isn't it?" said T. Boy

"Yes" said Mr. Boudreaux.

"And this is two", said T. Boy, sticking his fork in the second.

"Yes", replies Mr. Boudreaux.

"Well don't one and two makes three?" replied T. Boy trimphantly.

"Well, I declair, said Mr. Boudreaux. "You have learned things a Texas A&M."

"Well mother", continues Mr. Boudreaux to his wife,"I'll give you one of the chicken to eat and I'll take the other, and T. Boy can have the third one. How is that T. Boy?'

-posted by Bad Commie @ 9:55 AM