Hey man, I didn’t say he was a competent sociopath.
You’'re really EddyTeddyFreddy, aren’t you?
Naw, I wouldn’t have misspelled “venomous”. 
Obviously, some people will never make that metal leap. It’s not that it’s so strenuous really, just that it might bring one into painful conflict with closely held beliefs.
(Hmmm, someone had a name for that type of conflict… now what was it? Cog-wheel displacement, something like that?)
Heh. “Metal leap.” <snort!>
This is not all true. I am no longer a Republican and am no great admirer of Bush, but you have put forth the argument that these failures are Bush’s responsibility, or that he is to blame, or that they result from some ineptitude or failing of his.
I have seen the argument that Bush was involved in failed businesses more than once. I don’t really see that as a negative or a positive. Lots of businesses fail and lots of successful businessman had many initial failing. The oil business is a tough one.
Somehow those making these arguments always seem to make the logical leap that these failures were Bush’s fault. It’s a logical leap though. If you wish to make the argument you need to fill in the blank.
As for having a wealthy family who helped him out. So?
I hadn’t heard about the bank, so I can’t comment. But you say “for no apparent reason than to suck up to Poppy the other Rangers owners gave Dubya 12% of the club, although he’s only paid for about 2%”
This is not a very fair statement. Perhaps you are being disingenous, or don’t know better, but there are several other apparent reasons why they would do this besides or in conjunction with Poppy being powerful. For example, I recently completed a private placement stock offering where the investors receive only 25% ownership though they are contributing 60% of the capital. Management holds the large stake to incentivize and because they are doing the work.
In fact, the particular arrangement you have described is extremely normal, and it occurs in the majority of such transactions. It is hard for me to see that it is either a positive or a negative for Bush.
So? When Bush is representing the interest of the investors in the Rangers he holds one position and when he is representing the American people he holds another. Do you find this disturbing? Generally, my personal beliefs don’t enter into business decisions. I am being paid to enhance shareholder value and I argue and pursue opportunities from that standpoint, even if it runs against what I personally prefer. That’s what it means to have a job. As long as basic ethics and morals are upheld, I see no issue.
[quote[- Couple o’ years later, Bush and his fellow owners sold the team for several times what they paid for it. Bush garnered $14 million in stock. But to close the baseball chapter of his life, Dubya still had to pay back the loan from the bank used to purchase the team in the first place. How would he do this?[/quote]
Since you make such a big deal about his failed business ventures, you should at least give a nod that this appears to be successful
I am professionally highly cognizant of the reporting rules. Bush had a requirement to file promptly. He didn’t. Under a general amnesty for this kind of lapse he later filed. This kind of lapse is really very very very common.
Hypothesizing that Bush had insider info is innuendo. It could just as well be argued that Bush’s transaction faced increased scrutiny due to his father being a public figure. The fact that he was cleared by the SEC examining the transaction is hardly an indictment. In fact, IIRC correctly the stock did not Plummet “a week” after Bush’s sale, but actually went up. The SEC report did state that there was no benefit marketwise to Bush’s sale in terms of timing, and therefore it was impossible for it to fulfill the requirement of illegal insider trading. I also challenge anybody to tell me exactly what the information was that Bush supposedly posessed. This Harken nastiness is a simple fuck job promulgated by a prominant liberal columnist who is expert in economics and used his knowledge to selectively present facts to provide the appearance of impropriety, where in fact his knowledge should have demonstrated to him that there was no impropriety, as is obvious to anyone studying the issue who was equal knowledge of insider trading laws. It was simply a smear job.
Indeed.
I hope you’ll forgive my simley-face answer, but… 
I’m perfectly able to do it, I just choose not to right this minute. Give me 24 hours, and I’ll come up with it.
Robin
Well, you could have said “lying piece of shit.”
Okay, it’ll be interesting to see what you come up with to try to support your claim. However, given that unless you are a mind-reader your so-called “proof” will still be utterly specious, I won’t expect too much of it.
Besides, I thought you were watching movies with Hentor!
Come on now. The OSP and Downing Street Memos have put the nail into that coffin. If a smoking gun coupled with a rogue intel agency in our own country can’t serve as convincing proof, then nothing will.
Snerk.
Oh, I don’t know…something might, someday. But what you refer to (and here’s your chance to fight ignorance) could, I think, be called circumstantial evidence, and therefore not unrefutable, yes/no?
I can’t believe it!!!
:smack:
“Sociopath” might not be clinically accurate (it’s not a diagnosis I’m competent to make in any case), but it sure does carry the insinuation I want it to carry. That Mr. Bush has a chronic and severe disconnect from social norms of honesty and empathy.
If I thought moderating my descriptions of the Pres would suddenly start making a difference in these discussions, I’d do that.
Doubtful.
No.
First, this is not a court of law. Their rules for proof and evidence are quite different than those dictated by general critical thinking skills. This normally isn’t a problem, but we shouldn’t reserve judgement just become someone cannot be convicted.
Now… you seem to be using the phrase ‘circumstantial evidence’. incorrectly. The ‘sexing up’ of intel reports, the ‘fixing facts’ around previously drawn conclusions, the decision to oust Sadaam no matter what and indeed to maneuver him into a corner so we could claim that as a justification, the blatant cherrypicking and distortions which went on at the OSP, the ‘yellow cake’ lie, etc… : none of these are in any doubt[sup]*[/sup], and all have a direct impact on the rush to war and Bush’s role in it.. As such, they don’t seem circumstantial at all, although I’m certain a lawyer could argue either side if paid properly 
*Or at least, I have never seen any single one challenged on factual grounds.
You want it to carry an inaccurate insinuation?
I think the insinuation is accurate, or I wouldn’t make it. The term itself has a clinical meaning which may not apply. I wouldn’t use it in a debate and I wouldn’t try and prove it as a claim. But I do endorse it as an apt insult in this case because of the connotation I’ve described.
I don’t even know what to make of this. Is this funny?
Starving Artist, you’re a fool. You’re too stupid to be an apologist. You are more at a denialist, and you are the neocon’s bread and butter. I hope you have a boatload of cash and a vast estate, because otherwise, you are bent over the table with your pants around your ankles and Karl Rove’s meaty paws clutching your hips. Yet, all you choose to do is look back and give him the ‘Commander Crippen over the shoulder smile and thumbs up.’
You and people like you wrought this shit sandwich we are all having to eat. However, I am going to ask you something. I mean this with all sincerity. Please, will you stop being part of the problem and be part of the solution?
So you yourself doubt that convincing proof will be established one day?
Nor should we leap to judgement, particularly when “critical thinking skills” are required to come to a particular conclusion. Proof is proof; conclusions reached through critical thinking is open to debate.
Well, I did after all only say I “thought” it could be called circumstantial evidence…but, aren’t you the one who just said this isn’t a court of law?
Yes, they have an impact on Bush’s role in it, as does any pertinent information. This does not prove that Bush concocted it, nor does it prove Bush deliberately lied about it when he really knew better.