I have no problems with your views of GWB and you are correct that your opinion does count. The point I was making is that if you want to start out calling someone stupid, or a nimrod or some other name, you should be ready to have this type of label applied to you.
It is obvious that I oppose Kerry pretty strongly, but I would never make the mistake of assuming he is stupid.
Man- How can any strategic thinker have any respect for this guy?
He has harmed american capability , prestige and national security more than Carter was accused of. At least Carter understood Warfare , Technology and later, hard lining (He was a Submariner, not a sometime flyboy)
To an inveterate "People's General" Player- what a freakin' moron.
Perhaps we ought to brush up on our Hangul....
One of Il's biggest frustrations is that the west was more or less ignoring the little prick. His people are starving, but that's nothing new, they've been starving for 10 friggen years, and his infrastructure is first class shit. His nukes are not his only cards as Salon magazine incorrectly states, he's got a million men and more artillery overlooking the DMZ and Seoul than most countries own. Any military action might allow him to pull the trigger and level the capitol of South Korea and take about a 1/2 million South Koreans with it, not to mention 10,000 American military personnel that the pentagon believe they would loose in an all out attack by the North. That is if he uses conventional weaponry and not the stuff he's acquired in the last 2-3 years (maybe from our current inmate, Saddam).
Our problems with him didn't begin w/President Bush. They go back several years and the Clinton administration didn't have a lot of luck w/him either. So, as you are apparently the wise one, how would you handle this little communist? Have you considered that there might be quite a bit going on behind the scene, especially with China, who are attached to this leech of a country?
"....How would you handle this little communist?...."
Well, for starters, don't give State of the Union addresses in which you name North Korea as part of the "axis of evil". Unless I missed something in "Diplomacy 101", this is a sure way to end negotiations before they start. This, coupled with the invasion of a state (i.e., Iraq) that was sure not to possess nuclear weapons, only served to galvanize Kim Jong Il into processing the spent fuel rods into weapons grade material.
And please don't try to sell me that George W. and his crack team of diplomats would have given Metternich and Talleyrand a run for their money. To paraphrase Jack Nicolson, "...sell crazy somewhere else, we're all booked up here..."
-- Modified on 6/25/2004 8:55:10 PM
when Reagen called the Soviet Union the "evil empire". He was right then and GWB is right now. You must face terror, not run from it or try to appease it.
This is the very reason why GWB will win re-election.
GWB - Presidnt of the United States, former owner of a Major League team, Harvard MBA, Fighter Pilot, Rich
SULLY - Let us know how you stack up against this...
If you can't present a more impressive background, then that would mean since he is a NIMROD, you would be a complete
F'ing Loser. Let us know??
In fact, if my daddy was President, and the Saudis gave me gift contracts worth many tens of Millions of dollars so that they could have lobbying access to my Pres daddy, I CERTAINLY would have had a much more distinguished career than Bush - The man has botched EVERY job he's ever had. EVERY company he's run has been a failure, despite the Saudi largess, His Baseball team gave away Sammy Sosa and was a perennial loser, his election was illegitimate, he's causing financial ruin and a disastrous war during his Presidency, and BTW:
Bush was NOT a fighter Pilot. He was a pilot trainee of fighter planes, - and an absentee one at that. A fighter pilot is someone who flys a plane in battle.
Plenty of men have become POTUS from humble beginnings, so quit wining about your poor disadvantaged life... "If my daddy were President"
Nepotism happens all the time! Ask Al Gore 
I wouldn't say he has been a failure at everything, that is your assesment. He was a good Governor and is a good POTUS. He has also been successful in kicking a lot of Democratic butt (Anne Richards, Al Gore)
As far as bitching about the election, spare us and get over it!! Why don't you read the Constitution adn then perhaps you will understand the electoral process better.
BTW, if you fly a plane and its a fighter, your a fighter pilot. You just haven't seen combat...
And we are looking for some type of reply other than that you don't believe the charges in agrkej's post, because Bush himself, at one time or another, has actually admitted to just about everything in that post.
The fact is, Bush has NEVER in his adult life, earned a single, solitary dollar, that he did not get from selling either access to his daddy the President, or access to the powers of government in Texas or the United States. He has received tens of millions of dollars in backing from the Saudis, ostensibly to drill dry holes in Texas (like the Saudis don't have access to enough PROVEN oil fields in their own country), and tens of millions of dollars in bogus gift ownership of the Texas Rangers in exchange for political favoritism in Texas.
That is how he got ALL of what he has achieved in this world. We are not making excuses. We are saying that EVERYTHING Bush has ever gotten in his life, he got through corruption, NOT through accomplishment. While in prior posts, I may have over-stated his stupidity, it's only because I have under-stated his duplicity. But NOTHING the man has ever achieved can be considered to be an accomplishment based upon honest application of talent and ability. And you have NEVER made the point that they have been. You simply claim that his having the positions is in and of themselves, proof of the man's ability. In fact, it is not. He has only gained these positions through family connections and corruption. Which is not a record that he should be proud to run on - and in fact, he doesn't run on it. He runs on misrepresentations about the war on terror, and his opponent, because he has no other choice in the matter.
-- Modified on 6/27/2004 1:17:41 PM
I'm not saying any of this is untrue. If anything, I think it shows the Bush families shrewdness at business. I'm sorry if you think he was over compensated for putting a deal together, but have you been keeping up with executive compensation lately. Guys are pulling in 100s of millions to manage failing companies. Don't act like this is a GWB thing, this is a corporate thing and happens all the time!!
Also, spare us the nepotism bitching. If it is such an issue for you, go yell at your dad for not being more successful. It is also part of life. This did not seem to be an issue when Al Gore was running for President. Therefore, your arguments about nepotism really ring hollow.
Did Bush benefit from his father, HELL YES, SO WHAT!! Do we make it a rule that if your Dad was ever POTUS, you can not be? Well, better do it for the House and Senate as well and kick out all those damn Kennedys. BTW, did you ever stop to think that JFK got to the White House via Joe senior. What are your fellings about that??
BTW, as far as him earning his own money, the last time I checked he was pulling down 400K a year as POTUS.
And yes, I am aware of what has been going on in terms of executive compensation. It is one of the reasons I find the Republican attitude toward hands-off, turn away corporate non-governance to be so appalling. Remember, the current scandal of unethical dealing really came to light from Enron, who was George W. Bush's largest political donor. Enron's top brass screwed California taxpayers out of several BILLIONS of dollars, and their own shareholders and employees likewise, and George W. Bush's justice department has barely scratched them since they did this. People are getting plea-bargained sentences of a few years for stealing many billions of dollars. All of this is corruption, and George W. Bush is a LARGE player in that corruption.
I never said I was pissed at my parents for not giving me millions. But it is SURELY NOT a sign of INTELLIGENCE and BUSINESS SAVVY to accept a gift of 10s of Millions of Dollars when it is offerred to gain access to your daddy the President.
It's simply dumb luck, and any OTHER MORON in the same situation as Bush could have accepted the largess. An intelligent person would not have squandered most of the money, as Bush did with all of his failed businesses.
Sorry, but if you think being able to accept corrupt money for access to his father when he was President shows Bush to be an intelligent businessman, you are less enlightened than the Shrub is.
And, BTW, if one is ONLY counting salary over the past 4 years that Bush was POTUS, I have earned more than Bush in that timeframe. So, if you think that making significant money is some type of proxy for intellect, I've personally earned the right to belittle Bush on that basis. However, I know damn well that wealth is NOT a proxy for brains, especially in Bush's case, when it was unearned wealth.
This is an easy argument. We have a set of rules which govern business. It's called the LAW. Enron broke it and they are paying the price. If GWB had broken it, he would be paying the price. Well since so many want his head on a platter, I would imagine if any of these dealing were illeagl, they would be more that chat room fodder. Once again, did he go in with an advantage, yes, SO WHAT. There are laws against influnce peddling, if you want to make those accusations, its time you did more than sling innuindo and put up some proof. I doubt this will happen, since no one had done so as far, and its a hell of a lot easier to disparage than prove...
The fact is we are not arguing over whether he should go to JAIL for his business record. We are arguing whether it in ANY way PROACTIVELY qualifies the man to be the leader of our nation. And, I say, quite clearly NO.
You continue to try to twist the argument. And yes, I'm pissed because I have enough experience and insight in marketing to be able to spot bullshit when it is foisted on the American public.
I wouldn't expect someone with as limited capability as yourself to get pissed, because you are too naive to see what is being passed on to you. If you open your mind, I can educate you. If not, c'est la vie, and all I can do at that point is hope that you put your full Mensa aptitude toward finding a polling place on November 4th.
please explain everytime we get into one of our debates, you have to fall back on personal insults and attacks "limited capability", "too naive"...
These tactics are WEAK, HOLLOW and simply show your fustration at losing an argument.
BTW, did you forget GWB was Governor of Texas before becoming POTUS. Sounds like pretty good qualifying work to me! Once again, and this is a point I've already addressed on this board, is the fact that the left likes to keep calling him incompetent. Well, if he is so stupid, please explain why he consisently beats the left in the politial arena! Is it your assertion that since he is imcompetent, but can beat all of these folks (Ann Richards, Al Gore) that they are absolute f**king morons?
-- Modified on 7/4/2004 6:59:38 AM
-- Modified on 7/4/2004 6:59:53 AM
-- Modified on 7/4/2004 8:03:08 AM
past the age of 18, would you volunteer to tone down at least part of your attitude? After all, I did change this because originally I was going to ask you to stick your attitude in your ass, but I'm trying to maintain some consistency. As far as "bogus" gift ownership of the Rangers, you, nor I, know how that deal was put together. Everything that has been written has been nothing but speculation.
I will, however, state that at least in Minnesota, Limited Partnerships were the rage in the 80's. Many, many deals both small and large were put together through limited partnerships. Often times, a minor ownership position 1%-5% controlled the limited partnership by being the general partner. This allowed a "separate" entity (the general partner)to take on all exposure from contingent liabity. Is it feasable that something was in place in Bush's dealings with the Rangers? I do not know Texas partnership law, but I cannot think it would differ greatly from other states.
Also, sdstud, it seems to me that if you were a senior executive in the computer industry, you may have a clue about putting people together and making deals. If those deals work out, sometimes those individuals that "married the partners" have imbedded themselves within the deal to come out smelling like a rose. It sounds like in the Rangers deal, the ball club won, the City of Arlington won, the Fans won and of course, George Bush won and was given a premium compensation package.
I hope that your position as a "Senior Executive in the computer industry" doesn't mean you are the P.M. shift leader or assistant manager at OfficeMax, but given your understanding of how the business world works (on the right & left)I wouldn't be surprised. If that's so, please don't take offense, just don't try to pass yourself off as a big corporate deal-maker.
After all, for all I know, Bush might have had a paper route or a lemonaide stand, where he earned some money legitimately.
But certainly, if you count the money he's LOST for shareholders of companies he's run, that would add up to a large negative dollar value, all told.
-- Modified on 6/28/2004 5:11:08 PM
And in fact, my role in the computer industry the past few years HAS BEEN to negotiate strategic alliances and mergers and acquisitions. Prior to that, I headed up a $60 million product line. So I think I know a bit about doing a deal. And I expect that I've FORGOTTEN more about negotiating a strategic alliance than you Mr. Snafu929 have ever know. And the deals that Bush did were corrupt. Because he sold political influence as part of them. And it seems pretty obvious to me that the Texas Ranger deal was ALOT more win for Bush and the folks that he gave political favors to than it ever was for Rangers fans and taxpayers in general in Texas.
And I am willing to bet that I am walking away from more salary in the next 5 months just to defeat Bush than you earn in a year.
Hint: the salary I would have made in my prior role was well over $100K more than that which I am presently accepting, over the next 5 months period alone. But fortunately, I cashed out a couple hundred grand in stock options a few months ago to tide me over while I do my good deed for the nation.
-- Modified on 6/28/2004 5:07:37 PM
that is just precious.
Since you agree that nepotism happens all the time, how do you feel about affirmative action ?
BTW, just what are the accomplishments of Bush Jr. that you would consider self-earned (besides his ``DUI'') ? It is not that nepotism doesn't happend all the time - it is that this appears to be the sole vehicle for Bush Jr. Since I feel he is a disaster and that this may be the root cause (not doing anything himself - especially GOING TO WAR) I criticize him for this.
I'm curious. Can you tell me any man you admire besides Bush and a Republican ? I suspect that you admire Bush solely because he ``kicks Democratic butt''. Is there anything he has done that you disagree with ? If not, I would like to suggest that you save ``unconditional (blind) love'' for your children.
then refuse to release any medical information about your wounds and go snowboarding
I would be very happy for this election to go down on the basis of which of these two candidates has the more honorable military record. Or, on the basis of their personal character and integrity. Or, on the basis of their intellect.
Because either way, Bush get's slaughtered.
If, however, it goes down on the basis of who's campaign organization is more effective at misrepresenting the truth, Bush will win.
How convenient. I do find it reassuring that you seem to already be making excuses for a Bush victory on '04.
BTW, a judgement of character is personal, so your beliefs there are based on your own. From my side, character is the willingness to stand up do what is right.
GWB wins hands down!!
to be the "right thing to do" I will grant you Bush did that. Personally, when that is factored into the way in which our Iraq invasion has strengthened Al Qaida and raised the threat to our national security, I'd call Bush and Cheney Traitors.
Certainly, you're views are your own as well, and that is all the more pitiable. It's pretty astonishing how little a Mensa membership actually means as far as the ability to distinguish Bullshit from legitimacy from our present administration.
It goes off every time you post.
-- Modified on 6/30/2004 1:24:59 PM
Medical records in this country are private. The only reason why we in the public should have access to medical records is to the extent that they impact the candidate's health and ability to serve out his term.
Reagan released his records because there was an issue with his age, and he personally had reason to gain from releasing them.
Kerry has no more reason to release his records relating to his war service than Bush does in releasing the records as to how he overcame drug and alcohol abuse. In fact, I would contend that the Bush records relating to drug and alcohol treatment are MORE relevant, because folks who have sufferred from those types of addictions are known to occassionally relapse. Bush claims that he quit cold turkey - this, I would contend, makes him even MORE susceptible to a relapse, unless his doctors have monitored his physical reaction to withdrawal, and to exactly what substances he used to abuse and thus kicked. And we in the public have at least as much right to THIS information as we do to irrelevant details about the relative severity of a 30-some year old Kerry shrapnel wound, whether it was treated by minor surgery, or a sanitary swab and a band-aid. This wound has absolutely NO bearing on his his ability to serve his term, and is thus none of anyone's business.
-- Modified on 6/29/2004 5:52:01 PM
Medical records are private and everyone should have the right to keep it that way (therefore I know based on your post that you back Rush Limbaugh's fight). Kerry too has this right, but if we are going to keep hearing about his medals, the public naturally wants to know the details. If he chooses not to relase the information fine, but then we have the right to be skeptical...
Why is that? Surely, you wouldn't expect Kerry to be held to a standard on his medical records that Bush is not being held to. Because some, perhaps even me, might view this as hypocrisy on your part.
And as far as Rush Limbaugh's medical records are concerned, I would only ask that Limbaugh be held to the same standards that HE would advocate for Welfare Queens and crack junkies - frankly, I don't know what those are, since I don't listen to Rush very often. But in any case, since I believe in equal treatement, Rush should be held only to that egalitarian standard - But I would assume that since he wants his records to be confidential, he advocates the same treatment for those folks. In any case, let his own positions prior to his own problems serve as the proper guide, whatever those might have been.
My point was that all Medical Records should be private.
1) Kerry is stumping his Purple Hearts, so people are naturally curious, if he does not release his records, people will wonder. I never said he HAD to do it, I am saying that politically it is a stupid move not to if he wants to trump those medals
2) Last time I checked, GWB was not thumping his chest about what a great guy he was for beating a drinking problem and making it a campaign issue, if he was, he should probably release his medical records or not try to use this as an issue.
Easy enough to differentiate these now???
Tell me what is not truthful??
Truth really sucks for the Kerry campaign, eh...
It is just beyond pathetic, he avoids serving in Vietnam (via Daddy I'm sure) and then while sending others to war tries to come off like the Red Baron - Presumably his message to the soldiers was ``I've been there. I know your pain''. What a joke !!!! His lack of shame is mind boggling.
Are the Iraqis better off (this remains to be seen) and have the victims of the WTC attacks seen justice (Hell no !!!). Of course, these questions rely on the premise that these were the goals. I believe Bushie doesn't give a shit about either (only insofar as promoting the delusion).
Still, you haven't addressed the original question. What has Bush Jr. earned on his own ? I'll concede he didn't fuck up Iraq all on his own - he had a little help from his friends (Or, maybe his part was up until the ``mission accomplished'' segment in which case he was a glowing success all by his little self. Also, I bet the fighter pilot impression was his idea - Bravo !!! Georgie puddin pie).
They are an insult to every brave man and woman who actually earned those medals without having to go over their commanders head to get it awarded.
Snowman, you seem pretty hung up about 1 potentially questionable Purple Heart. But there is NO Dispute that Kerry earned the other two Purple Hearts with actual wounds, although they may not have been major wounds, and most importantly, his Bronze Star and Silver Star were specifically earned for valor under fire. One of these awards was for commanding his crew in a successful battle, and the other was for facing down fire while returning to haul one of his crew out of the river and back to safety. THOSE medals are undisputably legitimately earned medals for valor in battle.
Do not continue to exaggerate that you quetion Kerry's medals. There is only 1 medal out of five that ANYONE has raised ANY question about. Any claim beyond that is simply a flat out lie. I should think you'd have more integrity than to lie like that.
Oh, and BTW, the name any citation Bush EARNED during that same time - Other than a DUI citation, that is.
that I give him his propers for the Stars he was awarded. I believe he did earn those...
However, it's a damn shame he did't think more of them when he threw them over the White House fence.
And for all of his bravery when he earned them, he did so much damage with his testimonies when he got back state side that he ruined any crediblity those medals may have earned him. I would remind you that Benedict Arnold was one of America's great Generals right up to the point where he turned his back on our fighting men and our nation. I've got no problem with people protesting, but after a point you go from protest to aiding and comforting the enemy. Kerry crossed that point.
-- Modified on 7/4/2004 8:08:43 AM
Just so long as YOU acknowledge that Bush, at the same time, was AWOL for 5+ months, and earning DUI citations, while Kerry was fighting in the Mekong Delta.
That's part of it- I AM a total loser- shitty job- few prospects debts piling up.. And I can still feel like i am a more serious thinker than the President of the US. never felt like that before.
And stripping troops out of Korea right now for Iraq is not the right thing to do. Or sending the training units from the desert fighting school.
All these are errors that any Tom clancy reader can avoid. A little forethuoght. I always felt that Clinton felt out of his depth with foreign policy and thus gave it special attention, doing his homework. I get the feeling the Bush team tosses darts and consults their religuos advisors.
I don't pretend to be a great person. But I do have an opinion. And in this case, since i do vote, I feel my point of view has some merit.
I have no problems with your views of GWB and you are correct that your opinion does count. The point I was making is that if you want to start out calling someone stupid, or a nimrod or some other name, you should be ready to have this type of label applied to you.
It is obvious that I oppose Kerry pretty strongly, but I would never make the mistake of assuming he is stupid.
assume the worst of an individual. How sad...
I assure you we learned it when the GOP was overrrun by the Christo wackos on its own right and started the character assassination game.
Having opened the pandora's box- the GOP will have to deal
Seeing as how we control the House, Senate, Supreme Court and White House, I would say we are dealing with it very well
Funny how "under control" they decided that Bush can't just suspend the Constituton and deny access to due process for the folks we are holding captive.
And, BTW, you've only got 6 months left of control of the White House, as well.
you guys started the character attacks with clinton's rise. So expect to lose seats over the next 12 years....
We took the Senate back the next election
I think Bush is smart at the things that ought not to count for much like politics and how to distract voters. His mental weakness comes when he deal with important things like peace and freedom. Never seems to think things through. And never seems to really have a grasp on the history of the situation.
Yes I do think he is an evil piece of work. I also do NOT think that about his brother. Jeb might have made a great president. I'd still disagree with him alot, but he does seem to think, and have a sense of proportion. Bush senior is someone I still respect a little. It's just Dubya who keeps me from ever watching a speech or presentation. I just can't live with the embarrassment that he is president.
-- Modified on 6/28/2004 10:10:36 AM
-- Modified on 6/28/2004 10:11:58 AM
I'm just a big pain in the Halliburton!
-- Modified on 6/28/2004 10:11:01 AM
-- Modified on 6/28/2004 10:11:32 AM
Excerpt from the link concerning G. W. Bush's ownership of the Texas Rangers
Deal #3: A Big Slice of the Texas Rangers for a Little Money (and a Big Profit)
The third unusually easy deal for George Bush Junior was his involvement in the Texas Rangers baseball team. In a nutshell, he was offered a piece of this valuable franchise for only $600,000, by supporters of his dad who also bailed out his failing oil company. He sold his stake for $14 million - while Texas governor -- to a Texas millionaire with lots of businesses regulated by his administration. "When all it is all said and done, I will have made more money than I ever dreamed I would make," Bush told the Forth Worth Star-Telegram.
Bush was allowed to buy 1.8% of the team for $600,000 of borrowed money, and was even made one of the two general managers. His qualifications for partial ownership? Several years working at failing oil companies, and his political connections through his father. It's hard to be sure, but we're guessing that latter was probably more important.
Junior tripled his investment, like the other owners, with the help of massive government intervention and subsidies. But his real wealth came from simply being given 10% of the team as a "bonus" for "putting together the investment team."
Even if he really had done that work, it's an absurd bonus ($12.2 million), but the fact is that he didn't add much. Cincinatti financier William DeWitt brought Bush in, not vice versa, shortly after George Bush Sr. was elected president. (DeWitt had also invested in Junior's oil companies.). The only investor Bush actually brought in was Roland Betts, a Yale fraternity brother, and that wasn't good enough.
Under Junior's management, the deal was about to fall apart until baseball commissioner Peter Uebberoth brought in another investment group led by Fort Worth Billionaire Richard Rainwater and Dallas investor "Rusty" Rose. Since the deal, both men have profited greatly from business with the Texas administration of George Bush, Jr. Rose personally invested $3.2 million and became the other general manager of the team. Under the team partnership agreement, Bush Junior couldn't take any "material actions" wihtout Rose's prior approval. There was also a method for removing Junior as a general partner, but no way to remove Rose. Yet Rose's "bonus" for his role in setting up the deal was less than half of Junior's.
What kind of owners would approve such a big payoff to Bush? In addition to Rose and Rainwater, men with business pending before Texas government, the owners included William DeWitt and Mercer Reynolds, major contributors to President Bush who had also purchased Junior's failing oil company through their Spectrum 7 Energy company.
If this deal doesn't smell bad enough already, consider Bush's blatant hypocrisy. The main value of the team is its new stadium (ranked by Financial World as the most profitable in baseball) and 300 acres of vacant land the team owns between the stadium and 6 Flags of Texas, which is next door.
Putting Tax Money into Bush's Pocket
The hypocritical part is, the private owners of this very valuable land didn't want to sell. Bush and his partners gave them only a lowball offer, and when it was rejected they arranged for a new government agency (the Arlington Sports Facility Development Authority, or ASFDA) to condemn it for them.
The agency foreclosed the land and paid the owners a very low price, later judged by a jury to be only 1/6th of its actual value. The agency also floated bonds, guaranteed and repaid by taxpayers, to finance the purchase. This amounted to a $135 million subsidy for Bush and partners, compared with the $80 million they paid for the franchise. Since they sold the entire franchise for $250 million, it's easy to see whose money Bush and friends pocketed.
The next time Junior talks about tax cuts, remember this: Arlinton had to impose a new 1/2 cent sales tax just to pay for the subsidy Bush and his partners received.
To add insult to injury, Bush and his partners continue to stiff the taxpayers for $7.5 million they owe under the terms of the agreement. It held that the team would pay all expenses over $135 million. The original owners of just 13 of the acres sued the City of Arlington, saying that the ASFDA had not paid a fair price for the land. The jury awarded them $7.5 million, but even though the project exceeded the $135 million limit, the partners have refused to pay. Given their huge taxpayer subsidy and $170 million profits, it seems absurdly selfish.
George Bush, Jr. has said in campaign speeches "I will do everything I can to defend the power of private property and private property rights when I am the governor of this state." Apparently this deal was not covered by that statement, since he wasn't governor yet.
He claims that he "wasn't aware of the details" of the land condemnations, even though he was the team's managing general partner and has bragged about personally getting the stadium built. But he told the Fort Worth Star-Telegram in October 1990 that "The idea of making a land play, absolutely, to plunk the field down in the middle of a big piece of land, that's kind of always been the strategy."
And the key to their land play was always the strong arm of government. A memo from Arlington real estate broker Mike Reilly to Rangers President Tom Schieffer dated October 26, 1990 - the day before Bush's comment about the land play - said "In this particular situation our first offer should be our final offer ... If this fails, we will probably have to initiate condemnation proceedings after the bond election passes."
On the first day of the 1993 campaign, Bush said "The best way to allocate resources in our society is through the marketplace. Not through a governing elite." Not through a private sports team buying in the President's son cheap, and then getting the government to hand them extremely valuable land.
who talked about President Bush, the illuminati and the large relocation camps secretly being built around the country by UN personel for me and you during Hillary's 2nd term. Yeah, as credible of a source as yours. Completely real and completely wacked out.
And as for charges against Hillary Clinton - I wasn't aware that she was running for President in this election. I find it amusing that any time someone points out Bush's flaws as they relate to THIS Presidential election, the Republicans try to change the subject to the Clintons, who aren't presently running for anything except positions on the Best Seller list.
-- Modified on 6/27/2004 1:13:41 PM
Here is an article on CNN.com that gives some of the same info. Funny thing, but I did have a hard time finding a lot of stories on Bush's business ventures. You would think the "liberal media" would be all over them at least as much as they were all over Whitewater. It's enough to make you think that maybe the media is not as liberal as conservatives make them out to be!
First of all; 45 cents on the dollar of original investment returned plus 80 cents on the dollar in tax breaks (planned loss) equals 1.25 cents on the dollar or a 25% return on investment which is pretty good. Definately over my level of investment and most others, but not illegal and I would bet my life against your 5 bucks that he wasn't the only one taking advantage of the opportunities of those days in both the energy field and tax loopholes. As far as Bush owning part of Harken Oil, Hell, I owned part of Harken Oil in 1988, thousands upon thousands of investors owned part of Harken Oil. Yes, I took my lumps in it and walked away. Does reading an old article referring to him selling his shares prior to the stock deflating and the further mentioning he missed an opportunity because it went up a year later leave me today gritting my teeth in frustration? NO, I could give a fuck. Then, it was speculation for me and a business deal for him. I lost $2,500 and he made or got back $835,000.
As far as the stadium issue, just answer how many stadiums are built today, or have been built in the last 20 years completely with private money. I don't have that answer, but I do know the situation in Minneapolis. The Target Center had a lot of private money in it along with a lot of City money (taxpayers), the Metrodome was built on public funds and is now paid for. PAID FOR!!! (by increased sales, entertainment & lodging taxes), and the Minnesota Twins & Minnesota Vikings both want their own stadium, and guess what, they are threatening to move unles it is paid for with public money! BTW, the tax increases set into place for the Metrodome financing had a sunset clause which the City of Minneapolis abated. The taxes are still in place supporting social concerns. It continues to have a negative impact on convention business because it make Minneapolis less competitive in lodging rates, meals, entertainment etc..
I have been to some great ballparks around the country that were public projects, but none come to mind that are completely privately financed. If you have some examples, please enlighten me.
In addition, the two property owners mentioned in the CNN article didn't have their property SEIZED (unless it was a unpaid debt, tax lien or criminal issue). It was done through a process of public condemnation (eminent domain). Often times, when projects such as this (transit systems, roadway expansion, airports, municipal projects, malls, hospitals, educational facilities, STADIUMS) are planned, built and completed, property must be acquired from private ownership. Dissagreement between the forced seller and buyer often occurs on the value of the property. Just because "a jury" found that they were paid 1/7 value doesn't tell me anything other than either Bush, his entity or the City of Arlington (or all behind the project) made the best deal they could to acquire the property. Obviously, "the jury" with the help of the plaintiffs attorney were able to establish a different value to the property, but was this value as is, prior to the stadium project being discussed or was it the current value with a new stadium being built "next door". What seems odd is that 90% of the time, issues such as these are done by arbitration which would not involve a jury.
So I end my rant with WHO GIVES A FUCK??? Show me facts, don't show me speculation based upon a journalists impression of a business deal.
Merely that he knows how to accept a gift in exchange for political favors. Any moron is capable of accepting that type of largess, and in these cases, George W. Bush was that moron.
Those deals may not have been the slightest bit illegal. But they were certainly unethical and would not be the type of engagement I would ever want from someone whom should be considered a leader.
My original post in this thread wad in response to Snowman39's post that GWB was not a nimrod because:
GWB - President of the United States, former owner of a Major League team, Harvard MBA, Fighter Pilot, Rich.
While the sites I posted do not prove that Bush did anything wrong, they certainly call into question whether or not these items on his resume are accomplishments that prove his business acumen, or if just any nimrod with connections could have pulled them off.