<<<<Successful entrepeneur? LOL! If by “successful entrepeneur” you mean somebody who was set up in business by his family, and failed several businesses, then I guess I would agree with you.>>>
I guess that would depend on your definitions of “failed” and of “businessman”. I don’t think your cites say a single thing about GW’s ability to run a business. They are a disclosure of how much money he has, and where he keeps it. That is about as meaningless as it gets in assessing a person’s success at running a business.
Here’s some of many questions that spring immediately to my mind:
Where did the money come from?
Did he earn it?
Did he steal it?
Did he inherit it?
Did he do a combination of the above?
Would he have had many millions more if he had done things more effectively?
I think you see my point.
Show us, if you can, that he began with little or nothing, created something from scratch or from the ashes of someone else’s failure, and through hard work, talent, and good decisions, created a thriving business which went on to provide valuable products or services to people or businesses.
With a sardonic smile playing about his lips, Doghouse Reilly cordially invites you to provide a cite backing up your assertion that even one fifteenth of that number have actually ratified the Kyoto protocol. And if you cannot do so (the sardonic smile suddenly disappearing), Doghouse Reilly politely asks that you admit that you were either deliberately misleading this board or (more likely) flaunting your own ignorance.
As an aside: Oh yes, some treaty is better than none. That idea sure carried the day at Versailles, after all.
<<Show us, if you can, that he began with little or nothing>>
That is not required.
<< 3) Did he steal it?>>
If you think he did, then put up or shut up.
<<I don’t think your cites say a single thing about GW’s ability to run a business.>>
Net worth, 16.9 million. Unless you can point out that he started out with substantially more than that 20 years ago, and lost it, I’d say that that kind of a net worth is a better indicator of his business acumen than ANYTHING else you’re likely to name.
<<created something from scratch or from the ashes of someone else’s failure, and through hard work, talent, and good decisions,>>
Well, for starters, the Texas Rangers franchise was a heck of a lot more valuable when he sold it than when he bought it. That’s a significant accomplishment in wealth creation right there. (Yeah, the taxpayers of Arlington, TX helped, too. But they voted to do so by a 2-1 margin.)
This entire thread has been enlightening and oddly refreshing.
The OP opened like a lot of propaganda: mostly silly in fairly obvious ways, but sufficiently articulate in its expression to make one worry that it will have persuasive force with some people. It bore another hallmark of effective propaganda: unrelenting reiteration of dubious propositions, the falsity of which is then compounded when those same propositions are later invoked as premises for even more dubious tirades.
Reading that sort of crap is so very exhausting, of course, and that is by design. The technique fends off rebuttal because any person sufficiently informed to provide it also knows exactly how daunting that task will prove. (“Where do I BEGIN to sort out all that bullshit?”)
But dopers came through. Rather than run from the challenge you collectively exposed what was disguised as moral imperative (“Bush is a man so evil that he merits HATRED”) for the partisan political claptrap that it is (“Boy am I still steamed about the outcome of the last presidential election!”)
Actually, I think it’s on you to point that out. Where the money came from means everything, and you were the one who brought up his net worth as evidence of business acumen, when we both know that is simply not true. Did he start with nothing? * Where did it come from? *
If I win a $20 million lottery, does the fact that I now have $20 million mean that I have great business acumen? Of course not!
I don’t know where the money came from. But I know he is the son of a wealthy man. I know he managed to lose a hell of a lot of money for some folks in an oil deal way back when. I know that he was voted some money for the Texas Rangers. None of that says great businessman to me. If you know something more than that, I’m certainly ready to hear about it.
And as for “building a successful political career”, I think that might have been one of the things themoon was referring to when he talked about what GW has had handed to him. He didn’t “build” jack shit. He ran for governer on his daddy’s name and won. He ran for president on his daddy’s name and got lucky. Hardly “building” a career.
Uh…no. The man to whom it supposedly happened, merely stated that it happened, and no one has confirmed it. That is not what is generally known as “verification”.
**
I have no reason to believe he is lying, but then I have no reason to believe he is telling the truth, either. For all we know, like you, he may be possessed of an unreasoning hostility toward Bush, and willing to say anything to discredit him. No one has stepped up to falsify the incident, but no one has stepped up to verify the incident, either. That’s what makes it hearsay. And that’s why I am not willing to simply accept it as God’s Own Truth, as you are.
**
<<He didn’t “build” jack shit. He ran for governer [sic] on his daddy’s name and won.>>
…And won again, by an overwhelming margin.
<< He ran for president on his daddy’s name and got lucky.>>
Ah the pitter patter of little feet. Only I think I hear them stomping on sour grapes.
Hardly “building” a career.
By the way–speaking of famous daddys–I seem to remember a Senator from Tennessee by the name of Gore, too.
<<Where the money came from means everything, and you were the one who brought up his net worth as evidence of business acumen, when we both know that is simply not true.>>
Actually, unless he started out with 16.9 million, then the fact that his net worth makes him a millionaire 16 times over is evidence a-plenty of his business acumen. Absent demonstration of fraud, there is no more reliable indicator, save perhaps a cash-flow statement. But it doesn’t appear the guy is hurting for liquidity, either, and according to ABC, derives a substantial income from his investments.
<<I know he managed to lose a hell of a lot of money for some folks in an oil deal way back when.>>
Oil’s a commodity. Commodities are risky. Commodity traders and investors know that going in. Even the best oil prospectors swing and miss from time to time. Bush’s 16.9 million dollar personal net worth demonstrates conclusively that he swings and connects often enough.
<<I don’t know where the money came from. But I know he is the son of a wealthy man.>>
So is Gore. So is Ted Kennedy. So much sour grapes. Can the class warfare claptrap, will ya?
I’m afraid I’m going to have to pick some nits with you. Especially if yer gonna get all lawyer-y on me, like it means anything.
Nope.
See: * Verify *
** To prove the truth ** of by presentation of evidence or** testimony ** ; substantiate.
3. Law.
a. To affirm formally or under oath.
testimony * n
2: an assertion offering firsthand authentication of a fact;
Hearsay *
Unverified information heard or received from another; rumor.
Law. Evidence based on the reports of others * rather than * the personal knowledge of a witness and therefore generally not admissible as testimony.
Hearsay evidence (Law), that species of testimony which consists in a a narration by one person of matters told him by another. It is, with a few exceptions, inadmissible as testimony. --Abbott.
According to these definitions, of your words, which you have been brandishing like the Swords of Truth, when I received the story in email, along with thousands or millions of other people, it was hearsay. My friend was telling me about matters of which she had no direct, personal knowledge. Snopes then went to the man who was the * then supposed * player in the detail to ask him to * verify * it, which he then did. He * substantiated it by his testimony that it was in fact the truth. * He was the only person aside from Bush who could do so, since it was a private conversation.
Yes, but since you are the one who seems to want to pretend that Great Debates is a court of law, isn’t it fair to operate from the same basic standard offered by our fine system: that a person is innocent until proven guilty? In other words, since you have no reason to believe otherwise, I think it really behooves you to presume that the man is honest. Or do you just habitually presume that people are lying until you have two or three independent sources backing up everything they say? I hope not, because that would make for a really annoying way to go through life.
Because you do not come to the same conclusions about Bush that I do, does not mean that my hostility is unreasoned. I have lots of reasons to be hostile towards him, you simply may not agree. It isn’t as though I woke up one day and just decided I didn’t like his looks. Additionally, I have not demonstrated or expressed a willingness to “say anything to discredit him”, and your accusation of same is false and insulting.
I would venture to say that your attitude is not exactly as reasonable as you’d like to think. At the very least, you lack consistency. For on the one hand, you insist on giving Bush the benefit of the doubt at every turn, even though there is evidence to suggest that he might very well say something that snotty when he thinks no one is listening, having been caught doing so before. (The “asshole” comment into the open mike, smiling all the way). On the other, you refuse to give the man who actually had the experience (and told it to a friend in e-mail, by the way, he didn’t write a column about it. He has appeared to be rather reluctant to discuss it, without going so far as to deny it.) any credibility at all, assuming he’s probably guilty of lying without any evidence to back it up. Not exactly balanced treatment. Frankly, I’d hate to have you be the judge at * my * trial.
Hold the phone, my friend… I’m not arguing that there is anything inherently wrong with being rich or inheriting wealth. I’m arguing because he was born wealthy, his wealth is no measure of his abilities, which you insist on claiming it is. It’s only when you start with nothing that amassing wealth becomes a fair indicator of ability.
As for comparing Gore and Bush because both of them came from political families…don’t * even * go there. Gore followed in his daddy’s footsteps, yes…by devoting his whole life to it, starting as a teenager. Even people who didn’t like him freely admitted during the campaign the same thing themoon brought up earlier in this thread: there were and are few politicians better prepared for the job of president than he. He’s been doing the work his whole life.
Bush, on the other hand, decided at the last minute maybe he’d like to run the world… Ugh!
Saying it over and over again without any evidence will never make it true. What ** did ** he start with, Pan? Where did he get it? At the very most, we might say that he invests wisely. But that ** still ** doesn’t make him a good businessman! A successful businessman, by definition, * builds and runs a successful business *. You have only shown that he is a ** rich ** man, they are not the same thing!
Oy gavalt! One minute he’s got savvy business acumen because he’s so damn rich, look at all his great investments, and the next (when other people’s money is at stake, no less) he has no control over commodities and can’t be held responsible!
Make up your mind! Find a plan and stick with it…cuz you just can’t have it both ways!
Sheesh… yer givin’ me a headache! (And if you type “16.9 million dollar personal net worth” one more time, I’m gonna smack ya! )
Irony:
speech or writing so devised as to express a meaning
or lead to a conclusion opposite to the literal meaning
of the words used, esp. the literary technique or style
using such a device.
It isn’t a personal slam; it’s my honest opinion. Your partisanship seems to make you irrational (as partisanship tends to do to those who embrace it.)
And what makes you think that because it’s your “honest opinon” it isn’t a personal slam?
I think _____ is a prick. It’s my honest opinion.
I think _____ is a hopelessly clueless idiot. My honest opinion.
I think ______ is a liar and a cheat. My honest opinion.
However, I do not tell these people (not to mention everybody else) what my honest opinions are of them, because to do so would be unnecessarily insulting and rude.
The fact that I hold a sincerely felt negative opinion about someone does not mean it is then my duty to share that opinion. In fact, the very loosest standards of courtesy demand just the opposite. I’m sure that the people I feel this way about are perfectly content to go the rest of their lives never hearing (or reading, as the case may be) my negative opinion of them. I consider it the least I can do, since they have done me no injury, to afford them that minimal level of decency.
All I ask is that I be given the same. Please. Your opinion of my argument is fine, your opinion of ME is uninvited and unwelcome.
Does the quote, “Methinks the lady doth protest too much” mean anything to you, Stoid?
**
And this proves…what, exactly? There is no truth that has been proven here, which is exactly my point. There has been no evidence, beyond someone saying, “he said mean things to me!” There has been no affirmed oath. So, where is this verification of which you speak?
**
And where is this testimony of which you speak? Certainly, there is no indication of it within the Snopes article. No, really. Go back and read it again. All it says is that Mr. Hangley wrote his missive and sent it out to a few friends.
**
Sorry, but I haven’t been brandishing anything. Forgive me if “He said it, I believe it because I want to!” doesn’t exactly constitute proof in my book.
I’m no Bush fanboy, but I also don’t have a need to believe everything negative that I hear about him, especially based on hearsay. And that is exactly what this is: hearsay. You see, unless you were there you have no evidence one way or the other. You and I and everyone else have only Mr. Hangley’s word to go on. I don’t know a thing about Mr. Hangley, so, no, I’m not going to automatically believe his story as true, especially since there has been no independent confirmation.
**
Unless you are privvy to information which you’re not letting the rest of us in on, you’re reading an awful lot into the Snopes article. They made no claims whatsoever about contacting Mr. Hangley, nor did they ask him to verify it. They only state, “Mr. Hangley says he did”, which is only restating the obvious, since he wrote the article in the first place!
**
Pssst…I’m not the one who brought out the law definitions; that was you.
**
This reeks of hypocrisy. Does not Bush deserve the same courtesy - to be presumed innocent until proven guilty? An email containing statements made by an individual - statements which have not been independently verified in any way does not constitute proof of guilt in my book.
My point is that I don’t know if Mr. Hangley is telling the truth. As such, I do not take it for granted that Bush did, in fact, tell Mr. Hangley, “I don’t care what you think.” Get some independent confirmation of the event, and I’ll accept it. Until then, I choose not to condemn Bush for this alleged remark.
**
I do not presume they are lying, but I do not accept their word as gospel, either, especially if I don’t know anything about them. I like my sources verified, thankyouverymuch.
And you may find it annoying, but you’d be surprised at how often one uncovers ignorance by actually checking what people say.
Read, Stoid. I did not accuse you of any willingness to “say anything to discredit him.” Like you, I say what I mean, and mean what I say. The first clause (“he may be possessed of an unreasoning hostility toward Bush”) was applied to you. The second clause was not. Had I meant what you thought I did, I would have written, “For all we know, he may be possessed of an unreasoning hostility toward Bush, and willing to say anything to discredit him, like you.” Surely you see the difference. However, I do apologize if I was unclear; I phrased it that way specifically because I did not want to imply that you would say anything to discredit Bush.
**
Try again, Stoid. My treatment is equally balanced. Here’s a recap, since you don’t seem to get it:
I do not know if Mr. Hangley is telling the truth. I do not know if Bush actually said, “I don’t care what you think” to Hangley. Hangley, and only Hangley has stated that it occurred. I do not know Mr. Hangley, I know nothing about Mr. Hangley’s character, I do not know if he would lie or not. Since I do not know, I am unwilling to make a determination as to whether the incident did, or did not, occur. The status of the incident is, as indicated on Snopes, undetermined. I am therefore unwilling to accept Mr. Hangley’s words as evidence of Bush’s character, or lack thereof.
Please, tell me how this is an unreasonable position.
**
Your loss, Stoid. I wouldn’t be willing to prosecute based on such flimsy evidence.
