• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Frist and Insider Trading

gordontravels said:
I surely don't have a reading nor a comprehension problem and here's what you said:

QUOTE: Gordon, to me, "hmmmmmmm" means that I am wondering if there is anything wrong here--it does not mean I have found him guilty. I may say things like I hope that Frist is guilty, but I know that I cannot say he is. END QUOTE
:duel :cool:

Interesting. I don't remember directing that question to you, Gordon. I wonder why you would feel compelled to answer a question I asked someone else except to take a shot at me. But, hey, if it makes you feel better about yourself, have at it. :D
 
aps said:
Interesting. I don't remember directing that question to you, Gordon. I wonder why you would feel compelled to answer a question I asked someone else except to take a shot at me. But, hey, if it makes you feel better about yourself, have at it. :D

Isn't this a debate forum? Or, do you want to define who can participate in a discussion? I didn't answer any question but rather pointed out your disturbing view of the law. That is why I quoted you:

QUOTE: "Gordon, to me, "hmmmmmmm" means that I am wondering if there is anything wrong here--it does not mean I have found him guilty. I may say things like I hope that Frist is guilty, but I know that I cannot say he is." END QUOTE

Notice you address me by name? And now you "wonder why (I) would feel compelled to answer a question (you) asked someone else except to take a shot at (you). But, hey, if it makes (me) feel better about (myself), have at it."

First you would take a perverted look at the law "hoping" someone is guilty and then seek to see my participation in a debate forum as taking "a shot" at you to make myself "feel better"? Believe me, if you don't want me to address your posts in this "debate forum" lay that command on the line and I'll be happy to oblige. Otherwise I see you don't like to be questioned about your purely partisan approach to politics while you "hope" someone is guilty. Maybe you offset that by "hoping" that your favorites are innocent. Either way, partisan is just that as are you.

I will keep posting here to those of less consequence in their thinking and assessment of law and politics such as you but I take no "shot" to make myself "feel better". Just knowing I have a different outlook on politics and law than you display makes me just glow inside.
:duel :cool:
 
gordontravels said:
Isn't this a debate forum? Or, do you want to define who can participate in a discussion? I didn't answer any question but rather pointed out your disturbing view of the law. That is why I quoted you:

QUOTE: "Gordon, to me, "hmmmmmmm" means that I am wondering if there is anything wrong here--it does not mean I have found him guilty. I may say things like I hope that Frist is guilty, but I know that I cannot say he is." END QUOTE

Notice you address me by name? And now you "wonder why (I) would feel compelled to answer a question (you) asked someone else except to take a shot at (you). But, hey, if it makes (me) feel better about (myself), have at it."

First you would take a perverted look at the law "hoping" someone is guilty and then seek to see my participation in a debate forum as taking "a shot" at you to make myself "feel better"? Believe me, if you don't want me to address your posts in this "debate forum" lay that command on the line and I'll be happy to oblige. Otherwise I see you don't like to be questioned about your purely partisan approach to politics while you "hope" someone is guilty. Maybe you offset that by "hoping" that your favorites are innocent. Either way, partisan is just that as are you.

I will keep posting here to those of less consequence in their thinking and assessment of law and politics such as you but I take no "shot" to make myself "feel better". Just knowing I have a different outlook on politics and law than you display makes me just glow inside.
:duel :cool:

Are we having the same conversation? Gordon, in a prior post of mine, post #48, I quoted Stinger and then asked Stinger if he/she had reading comprehension problems. You came along and answered the question I had posed to Stinger. That is when I addressed you by name. That is the way I am--I address people by their name.

Your obession about what I think about Frist is really sad. I don't mind your having a differing opinion, but you keep saying the same thing over and over again, and I think it's weird. That's all.
 
aps said:
Are we having the same conversation? Gordon, in a prior post of mine, post #48, I quoted Stinger and then asked Stinger if he/she had reading comprehension problems. You came along and answered the question I had posed to Stinger. That is when I addressed you by name. That is the way I am--I address people by their name.

Your obession about what I think about Frist is really sad. I don't mind your having a differing opinion, but you keep saying the same thing over and over again, and I think it's weird. That's all.

I suggest you read that post you reference from me. I didn't answer you to assure of my comprehension. I made a statement that I had comprehension in the first place and then went on to add to the thread that you seem to think is yours. In a debate forum if you make a comment to anyone, another person can quote you and debate you or didn't you know that? You are in a debate forum and that's what people do.

I am not obsessed about what you think of Senator Frist regardless of your politics. I am not obsessed that you are as partisan as you are. I am "disturbed" as I have written that you would sit back and actually hope someone is guilty. You don't retract it do you? That is what you think because that is what you wrote. It is the way you approach your politics and it is my opinion that people like you get us nowhere. I am not a believer in the two party system.

If I have an obsession it is to try to get around people like you who let partisan politics stop debate and simply want someone to be guilty although those who aren't caught are more detrimental. Then, if they are caught and are on the other side, you can hope they are guilty. If on your side, you can hope they are innocent. Extrapolation? If you hope this man is guilty you hope more are breaking the law so your side can profit. That's why I said, "Sad."

In a debate forum you can't pick and choose who takes you on; especially when you say the things you do; good or bad; appreciated or not. A forum is provided so two sides can face each other and express themselves; two sides of the isle and those who are independent. I never say you shouldn't say something. I stand for your right to say anything you want. Doesn't mean you ARE right in what you say or attitude. Nothing personal; just debate.
:duel :cool:
 
aps said:
This is what I said: I am not saying he is guilty--I am merely saying I think there are issues raised by the timing of his selling his stock. That's all.

Do you have reading comprehension problems?

I think that very valid reasons for his wanting to get rid of it have been said an number of times. Should we investigate every stock sale by a senator if that stock goes down soon after he sells it? And are we to believe that had he still held it your side would be crying conflict of interest and demanding he sell it?
 
aps said:
Are we having the same conversation? Gordon, in a prior post of mine, post #48, I quoted Stinger and then asked Stinger if he/she had reading comprehension problems. You came along and answered the question I had posed to Stinger. That is when I addressed you by name. That is the way I am--I address people by their name.

Your obession about what I think about Frist is really sad. I don't mind your having a differing opinion, but you keep saying the same thing over and over again, and I think it's weird. That's all.

No one has a reading comprehension problem it's idea's behind what we read that are hard to comprehend as Gordon has pointed out. Ideas which you posted in this public free for all and now object to having them questioned.

So can you point to any evidence of wrong-doing, the wrong-doing you so hope he is guilty even though you hide behind the 'well I haven't SAID he was guilty have I", you hope he is and you indicate you think something is untoward, well what is it, the "timing" only proves nothing.
 
Stinger said:
No one has a reading comprehension problem it's idea's behind what we read that are hard to comprehend as Gordon has pointed out. Ideas which you posted in this public free for all and now object to having them questioned.

So can you point to any evidence of wrong-doing, the wrong-doing you so hope he is guilty even though you hide behind the 'well I haven't SAID he was guilty have I", you hope he is and you indicate you think something is untoward, well what is it, the "timing" only proves nothing.

Now that's what I'm talking about. Except the difference is that "I HOPE" she can give less evasive answers to her "hope he is guilty" stance. Sad that she thinks I am obsessed with her words but she still continues to bob and weave. Looks like a "hidden" or "hiding" obsession to me.

Come on aps. You said you hoped he was guilty. Maybe you have some "clarification" for those words. Hmmm?
:duel :cool:
 
I really have no idea what you, Stinger and Gordon, want from me. Let's see--I watched George Stephanopolis, Meet the Press, and Hardball and I read the New York Times and the Washington Post--and all of them are talking about this investigation of Frist. I am not an expert in this area nor do I care to be. I read articles and I watch political shows and I am allowed to comment on my suspicions. If I were the ONLY person who was suspicious of Frist's actions, I might wonder if I was not understanding something. But when I see, hear, and read that others are suspicious, it confirms my suspiciousness. Hey, if he is not charged with insider tradinging, then he's not charged. It's not going to devastate me.

I don't really have much to add. I have expressed my beliefs and my feelings about Frist. I don't know to what to make of his saying he had tried to sell his stock beginning in April. I will let the SEC and the Dept. of Justice do the investigations, but I will contine to read up on this subject.

Gordon, I am too lazy to go back and tell you the number of posts where you throw in my face what I said about Frist (how I hope he's guilty). I stand by what I said. If that makes you think less of me, so be it. I can handle it. If it makes you feel better to keep harping on it, go right ahead.
 
The ELITE own you lock stock and barrel
 
aps said:
I really have no idea what you, Stinger and Gordon, want from me. Let's see--I watched George Stephanopolis, Meet the Press, and Hardball and I read the New York Times and the Washington Post--and all of them are talking about this investigation of Frist. I am not an expert in this area nor do I care to be. I read articles and I watch political shows and I am allowed to comment on my suspicions. If I were the ONLY person who was suspicious of Frist's actions, I might wonder if I was not understanding something. But when I see, hear, and read that others are suspicious, it confirms my suspiciousness. Hey, if he is not charged with insider tradinging, then he's not charged. It's not going to devastate me.

I don't really have much to add. I have expressed my beliefs and my feelings about Frist. I don't know to what to make of his saying he had tried to sell his stock beginning in April. I will let the SEC and the Dept. of Justice do the investigations, but I will contine to read up on this subject.

Gordon, I am too lazy to go back and tell you the number of posts where you throw in my face what I said about Frist (how I hope he's guilty). I stand by what I said. If that makes you think less of me, so be it. I can handle it. If it makes you feel better to keep harping on it, go right ahead.

I'm happy for you. You can handle it. Perverting the very law of our country for political or at the least, purely partisan purpose. Yes my, at first dismay and now, my realization that you still "hope" someone is guilty speaks those volumns about your political character.

Now you say you will "let" the SEC and Dept. of Justice do their job. Wow, is this progress? Hardly. When they find nothing to warrant an indictment you will be without hope. When they find something to warrant an indictment your prayers will be answered.

Please, don't talk to me about me throwing anything in your face when you can't take the heat for your distorted views that fly in the face of over 2 centuries of law. I think distorted views are far worse than anyone harping on someone that believes those very distorted views are fine. Partisan is your name. Sad.
:duel :cool:
 
gordontravels said:
I'm happy for you. You can handle it. Perverting the very law of our country for political or at the least, purely partisan purpose. Yes my, at first dismay and now, my realization that you still "hope" someone is guilty speaks those volumns about your political character.

Now you say you will "let" the SEC and Dept. of Justice do their job. Wow, is this progress? Hardly. When they find nothing to warrant an indictment you will be without hope. When they find something to warrant an indictment your prayers will be answered.

Please, don't talk to me about me throwing anything in your face when you can't take the heat for your distorted views that fly in the face of over 2 centuries of law. I think distorted views are far worse than anyone harping on someone that believes those very distorted views are fine. Partisan is your name. Sad.
:duel :cool:

Boo hoo, Gordon. I am utterly devastated by your words. NOT. Anyone who harps on something this long is truly pathetic, in my personal opinion. Your opinion of me means absolutely nothing to me.

Buh-bye. :2wave:
 
aps said:
I really have no idea what you, Stinger and Gordon, want from me. Let's see--I watched George Stephanopolis, Meet the Press, and Hardball and I read the New York Times and the Washington Post--and all of them are talking about this investigation of Frist.

Well you pick all liberal leaning media so what do you expect?
I am not an expert in this area nor do I care to be. I read articles and I watch political shows and I am allowed to comment on my suspicions. If I were the ONLY person who was suspicious of Frist's actions, I might wonder if I was not understanding something. But when I see, hear, and read that others are suspicious, it confirms my suspiciousness.

That's teach you not to believe others if they all have a political agenda.

Hey, if he is not charged with insider tradinging, then he's not charged. It's not going to devastate me.

But as I recall you said you HOPED he'd be indicited. And made statements such as

"I am loving that Frist is in the hot seat. Look at him defending himself to his fellow repubs. Isn't that cute? When you're innocent, you have nothing to hide......"

Even though there is no evidence he has hidden anything.

No you take a comse comsa position, oh well.
 
Stinger said:
Well you pick all liberal leaning media so what do you expect?


That's teach you not to believe others if they all have a political agenda.



But as I recall you said you HOPED he'd be indicited. And made statements such as

"I am loving that Frist is in the hot seat. Look at him defending himself to his fellow repubs. Isn't that cute? When you're innocent, you have nothing to hide......"

Even though there is no evidence he has hidden anything.

No you take a comse comsa position, oh well.

Ahhhh, thank you for this much more reasonable response to my post. I appreciate it. :smile:
 
Stinger said:
Well you pick all liberal leaning media so what do you expect. But as I recall you said you HOPED he'd be indicited. And made statements such as

"I am loving that Frist is in the hot seat. Look at him defending himself to his fellow repubs. Isn't that cute? When you're innocent, you have nothing to hide......"

Even though there is no evidence he has hidden anything.

No you take a comse comsa position, oh well.

At the risk of being seen as remounting my "soap box" or actually daring to take part in a debate; this woman has no understanding of non-partisan.

This is the one that "hopes" others are guilty instead of hoping for an understanding within politics that would leave the divisiveness behind. I've been called on the carpet for not being able to "get over it" but actually I have. I just think that this individual should understand what words like her's mean to others and how those of us who have nearly died for our country and those who did stood for her under an oath. She doesn't understand and that's why I usually end posts to her with - sad.

Senator Frist began the sale of his stock months before there was any talk at all of a downturn. Since that was the main question that the scandal mongers used to whip up concern, this will die a natural death. Should there have been an investigation? I think anyone in the position of trust that Senator Frist is in should stand scrutiny when there are legitimate questions and I think his sale of stock could have generated legitimate questions. I just think the investigation should settle it before the vultures circle or like our friend, land on the not so dead corpse or at the least, stop hoping he dies.
:duel :cool:
 
gordontravels said:

Senator Frist began the sale of his stock months before there was any talk at all of a downturn. Since that was the main question that the scandal mongers used to whip up concern, this will die a natural death. Should there have been an investigation? I think anyone in the position of trust that Senator Frist is in should stand scrutiny when there are legitimate questions and I think his sale of stock could have generated legitimate questions. I just think the investigation should settle it before the vultures circle or like our friend, land on the not so dead corpse or at the least, stop hoping he dies.
:duel :cool:

These days "investigation" means "guilty". It is SOP for the SEC to investigate such sales whether a Senator or a private citizen is involved. And amount that large with direct connections to the company is going to bring their scrutiney. What is evidence by all this is that the Democrats STILL have nothing left to offer but "smear the other guy and make him look worse than us so people will vote for us".

If Frist broke the law then let the cards fall where they fall, but clearly there is nothing to indicate that he did.
 
Stinger said:
These days "investigation" means "guilty". It is SOP for the SEC to investigate such sales whether a Senator or a private citizen is involved. And amount that large with direct connections to the company is going to bring their scrutiney. What is evidence by all this is that the Democrats STILL have nothing left to offer but "smear the other guy and make him look worse than us so people will vote for us".

If Frist broke the law then let the cards fall where they fall, but clearly there is nothing to indicate that he did.

send the 82nd airborne to washington your enemy is there
it fills to overflow with corruption both sides of the house
rotten to the core
 
WASHINGTON - Outside the blind trusts he created to avoid a conflict of interest, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist earned tens of thousands of dollars from stock in a family-founded hospital chain largely controlled by his brother, documents show.

The Tennessee Republican, whose sale this summer of HCA Inc. stock is under federal investigation, has long maintained he could own HCA shares and still vote on health care legislation without a conflict because he had placed the stock in blind trusts approved by the Senate.

However, ethics experts say a partnership arrangement shown in documents obtained by The Associated Press raises serious doubts about whether the senator truly avoided a conflict.

In that case, the HCA stock was accumulated by a family investment partnership started by the senator's late parents and later overseen by his brother, Thomas Frist. The brother served as president of the partnership's management company and as a top officer of HCA. Sen. Frist holds no position with the company.

The senator's share of the partnership was placed in a Tennessee blind trust between 1998 and 2002 that was separate from those governed by Senate ethics rules. Frist reported Bowling Avenue Partners, made up mostly of non-public HCA stock, earned him $265,495 in dividends and other income over the four years.

Edmond M. Ianni, a former Wilmington, Del., bank executive who established blind trusts for corporate executives, questioned why the senator's brother was able to manage assets "when the whole purpose of a blind trust is to ensure lack of not only conflict of interest — but appearance of conflict of interest?"

Kathleen Clark, a government ethics expert at the Washington University in St. Louis School of Law, said she doesn't believe the Senate trusts or the Tennessee trust insulated Frist from a conflict because the senator or his brother were advised of transactions and could influence decisions.

"What I find most appalling is the Senate calls it a qualified blind trust when it's not blind," Clark said. "Since the Senate says it's OK, the Senate has made it a political question. It's up to the voter. But there's no doubt it's a conflict of interest."

Frist's interest in Bowling Avenue Partners and the Tennessee blind trust were listed on the annual disclosure reports he filed with the Senate. Thomas Frist's ability to influence HCA stock decisions in the partnership was detailed in separate trust and partnership documents obtained by the AP.

Those documents show Thomas Frist was listed as the "general partner" and "registered agent" of Bowling Avenue Partners. He also was listed as president of the partnership's management company.

Frist advisers confirmed the senator's brother could influence investment decisions in the Bowling Avenue partnership and said the partnership was placed in a Tennessee trust because Senate ethics rules didn't allow the non-public HCA shares to be included in Senate-approved trusts.

"His interests in the family partnership were not held by his Senate blind trusts because Senate rules did not permit it. Senator Frist did not control the assets in this partnership and he annually disclosed his interests to the public as required," Frist spokesman Bob Stevenson said.

Thomas Frist did not return repeated phone calls to his office at HCA seeking comment.

Bowling Avenue Partners' HCA shares became marketable securities when the estate of Frist's mother was settled in probate. Frist then began transferring those shares in stages from the Tennessee blind trust to the Senate-approved trusts in 2001 and 2002.

The value of all the transferred shares, calculated on the dates they went into the Senate trusts, was between $775,000 and $1.57 million, according to letters the trustees sent to Frist and the Senate. That stock was on top of millions of dollars in various investments Frist already owned in the Senate blind trusts.

Frist kept HCA stock in Bowling Avenue Partners and the Tennessee blind trust — but outside the Senate-approved trusts — between 1998 and 2002.

His investments in Nashville-based HCA are being investigated by federal prosecutors and the
Securities and Exchange Commission after an AP report that the senator had asked administrators of his Senate blind trusts to sell his HCA holdings.

Frist ordered the stock sold June 13 and all sales were completed by July 1. HCA stock peaked on June 22 and then gradually declined. On July 13, it dropped 9 percent.

Reports to the SEC showed insiders sold about 2.3 million shares of HCA stock worth at least $112 million from January through June 2005.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051011/ap_on_go_co/frist_stock
 
I read an article in the Oregonian that said that documents on this case did not agree with statements made by Frist. This is getting more interesting by the week.
 
Back
Top Bottom