"John Emmons" wrote in message
...
People took Mr. Reagan seriously, he was an actor, not a very good actor
but
an actor none the less.

And a great president.

People take Mr. Bush seriously, he's a failed oil company exec., failed
baseball team exec. perhaps the worst president in the history of the
United
States and he seems to think that god directs him personally.

Let's see. He and a group of investors bought the Rangers in 1989 for $86
million. In 1998, they sold it for $250 million. Sounds successful to me.

Some people take Fred Thompson seriously, a former senator turned actor,
turned advisor to a Supreme Court nominee.

Not surprisingly, you have it backwards. Fred Thompson was an actor first
and then was elected to the Senate in 1994 and 1996. You are correct that
his is advising the new Chief Justice, however.

todd

Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 07:32:13 -0400, Shawn Hirn
wrote:

That's one of the ironies with the Supreme Court. The Republicans refer
to the Supreme Court as an activist court, yet 7 of the 9 justices on
the Supreme Court were nominated by conservative Republican presidents.

And their being picked by Republicans means what exactly? That the
judges are not activists? Or the Republicans picked judges that that
Left would accept?


I love it. No matter how much the Republicans screw up, it's still the
fault of the Left.

That is pitiful.

On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 18:41:08 GMT, "John Emmons"
wrote:


People take Mr. Bush seriously, he's a failed oil company exec., failed
baseball team exec. perhaps the worst president in the history of the United
States and he seems to think that god directs him personally.


So, what do you think of Truman..the failed clothing store owner, and
Abe Lincoln, the failed lawyer?

Gunner

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

On 18 Sep 2005 13:33:42 -0700, "Charlie Self"
wrote:


Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 07:32:13 -0400, Shawn Hirn
wrote:

That's one of the ironies with the Supreme Court. The Republicans refer
to the Supreme Court as an activist court, yet 7 of the 9 justices on
the Supreme Court were nominated by conservative Republican presidents.

And their being picked by Republicans means what exactly? That the
judges are not activists? Or the Republicans picked judges that that
Left would accept?


I love it. No matter how much the Republicans screw up, it's still the
fault of the Left.

That is pitiful.


The pitiful part is you being unable to answer the question.

Gunner

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 07:35:40 -0400, Shawn Hirn
wrote:

In article ,
Gunner Asch wrote:

Liberals are the poster children for hate speech.

Nonsense! We didn't invade another country under false pretenses. Going
to war under false pretenses is the ultimate act of hate.

What really amazes me is that anyone takes what some actor or religious
kook says in front of a TV camera seriously.

Thank you for demonstrating my claim, so ably.

Gunner


"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

Gunner Asch wrote:
On 18 Sep 2005 13:33:42 -0700, "Charlie Self"
wrote:


Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 07:32:13 -0400, Shawn Hirn
wrote:

That's one of the ironies with the Supreme Court. The Republicans refer
to the Supreme Court as an activist court, yet 7 of the 9 justices on
the Supreme Court were nominated by conservative Republican presidents.

And their being picked by Republicans means what exactly? That the
judges are not activists? Or the Republicans picked judges that that
Left would accept?


I love it. No matter how much the Republicans screw up, it's still the
fault of the Left.

That is pitiful.


The pitiful part is you being unable to answer the question.

Gunner

I thought for a moment you signed yourself "Gunny", but I see not.
Good.

No, really, one doesn't answer rhetorical questions. You really should
know that by now.

What is pitiful is that today's crop of Republicans refuse to accept
the blame for anything they do. My first years as an adult under a
Republican Administration were when Ike was President. It is
unfortunate that the Repbulican Party has drifted far to the right,
into the arms of Karl Rove and George Bush, since Eisenhower's time.

In article ,
"Todd Fatheree" wrote:

"John Emmons" wrote in message
...
People took Mr. Reagan seriously, he was an actor, not a very good actor
but
an actor none the less.

And a great president.

People take Mr. Bush seriously, he's a failed oil company exec., failed
baseball team exec. perhaps the worst president in the history of the
United
States and he seems to think that god directs him personally.

Let's see. He and a group of investors bought the Rangers in 1989 for $86
million. In 1998, they sold it for $250 million. Sounds successful to me.

Oh gee. You seem to have missed the part about using government
connections to seize a bunch of land for their new stadium from private
owners through eminent domain. This cronyism-enabled theft certainly had
something to do with the increased value of the the team.

--
Jedd Haas - Artist - New Orleans, LA (Currently exiled on the NJ shore)
http://www.gallerytungsten.com
http://www.epsno.com

"Jedd Haas" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Todd Fatheree" wrote:

"John Emmons" wrote in message
...
People took Mr. Reagan seriously, he was an actor, not a very good
actor
but
an actor none the less.

And a great president.

People take Mr. Bush seriously, he's a failed oil company exec.,
failed
baseball team exec. perhaps the worst president in the history of the
United
States and he seems to think that god directs him personally.

Let's see. He and a group of investors bought the Rangers in 1989 for
$86
million. In 1998, they sold it for $250 million. Sounds successful to
me.

Oh gee. You seem to have missed the part about using government
connections to seize a bunch of land for their new stadium from private
owners through eminent domain. This cronyism-enabled theft certainly had
something to do with the increased value of the the team.

*Gasp*. You mean to tell me that a multimillion dollar construction project
was built by people with government connections and acquired land through
eminent domain? I tell you what, let's tear down all the stadiums built in
the last 20 years across the country that were constructed in a similar
manner and I think you'd have a lot of teams looking for places to play.
Oh, and you seem to have missed the part where the voters in Arlington, TX
voted 2:1 to approve the deal to build the stadum. Not that that is even
relevant. The statement I took issue with was the one that said that GWB
was a failed baseball exec, which is clearly wrong considering the financial
gain the team made, whether or not you approve of how it was done.

todd

Todd Fatheree wrote:
"Jedd Haas" wrote in message
...

Oh gee. You seem to have missed the part about using government
connections to seize a bunch of land for their new stadium from private
owners through eminent domain. This cronyism-enabled theft certainly had
something to do with the increased value of the the team.

*Gasp*. You mean to tell me that a multimillion dollar construction project
was built by people with government connections and acquired land through
eminent domain? I tell you what, let's tear down all the stadiums built in
the last 20 years across the country that were constructed in a similar
manner and I think you'd have a lot of teams looking for places to play.
Oh, and you seem to have missed the part where the voters in Arlington, TX
voted 2:1 to approve the deal to build the stadum.

They did, but then voters in the city of Oakland, CA voted to construct
a stadium so they could have the Raiders back from LA, and the city got
seriously shafted in the process and had trouble balancing its budget in
the years after the stadium was built because the expense was so huge.

What happened in this case is that the residents were highly emotional
about having "their" team back. They were willing to vote "yes" to just
about anything that said it would bring the Raiders back. The vote was
a landslide in favor of the stadium, but after the costs became apparent
(which nobody seemed to care about during the election), public opinion
changed a bit. Naturally, it didn't help that seats were extremely
expensive even for residents of the city that had agreed to chip in
literally hundreds of millions for the stadium.

The point is, just because voters have approved something doesn't mean
people aren't getting shafted.

- Logan

On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 20:14:58 -0400, Jedd Haas wrote:


Let's see. He and a group of investors bought the Rangers in 1989 for $86
million. In 1998, they sold it for $250 million. Sounds successful to me.

Oh gee. You seem to have missed the part about using government
connections to seize a bunch of land for their new stadium from private
owners through eminent domain. This cronyism-enabled theft certainly had
something to do with the increased value of the the team.


You mean like the Dems have done for the last 60 yrs? Shall we
discuss Public Lands, and go from there?

Gunner

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

In article ,
"Todd Fatheree" wrote:

"John Emmons" wrote in message
...
People took Mr. Reagan seriously, he was an actor, not a very good actor
but
an actor none the less.

And a great president.

People take Mr. Bush seriously, he's a failed oil company exec., failed
baseball team exec. perhaps the worst president in the history of the
United
States and he seems to think that god directs him personally.

Let's see. He and a group of investors bought the Rangers in 1989 for $86
million. In 1998, they sold it for $250 million. Sounds successful to me.

Look at Bush's dealings in the oil business.

"Shawn Hirn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Todd Fatheree" wrote:

"John Emmons" wrote in message
...
People took Mr. Reagan seriously, he was an actor, not a very good
actor
but
an actor none the less.

And a great president.

People take Mr. Bush seriously, he's a failed oil company exec.,
failed
baseball team exec. perhaps the worst president in the history of the
United
States and he seems to think that god directs him personally.

Let's see. He and a group of investors bought the Rangers in 1989 for
$86
million. In 1998, they sold it for $250 million. Sounds successful to
me.

Look at Bush's dealings in the oil business.

I tell you what...you detail GWB's failings as it relates to the oil
business first. I've had no reason to look into it myself as I'm not sure
what relevance it (or the baseball stuff) has to how he performs as
president. If we eliminated anyone who ever failed at an undertaking from
serving in office, we'd have a lot of people who never did much of anything.
I guess in your view, Bill Gates would be the best candidate for president,
as few people could argue that he has been an extraordinarily successful
businessman.

todd

"Todd Fatheree" wrote:

People took Mr. Reagan seriously, he was an actor, not a very good actor
but an actor none the less.

And a great president.

People take Mr. Bush seriously, he's a failed oil company exec., failed
baseball team exec. perhaps the worst president in the history of the
United States and he seems to think that god directs him personally.

Let's see. He and a group of investors bought the Rangers in 1989 for $86
million. In 1998, they sold it for $250 million. Sounds successful to
me.

Yea he nailed a 5% (very) minority interest in the team as part of a deal
for his daddy's political connections. Without that 'success' he's batting
zero on every other business deal he has had his hands on.

"Todd Fatheree"
snip

.. If we eliminated anyone who ever failed at an undertaking from
| serving in office, we'd have a lot of people who never did much of
anything.
| I guess in your view, Bill Gates would be the best candidate for
president,
| as few people could argue that he has been an extraordinarily successful
| businessman.

How about we eliminate anyone who has failed at EVERYTHING?

"NotMe" wrote in message ...
"Todd Fatheree" wrote:

People took Mr. Reagan seriously, he was an actor, not a very good
actor
but an actor none the less.

And a great president.

People take Mr. Bush seriously, he's a failed oil company exec.,
failed
baseball team exec. perhaps the worst president in the history of the
United States and he seems to think that god directs him personally.

Let's see. He and a group of investors bought the Rangers in 1989 for
$86
million. In 1998, they sold it for $250 million. Sounds successful to
me.

Yea he nailed a 5% (very) minority interest in the team as part of a deal
for his daddy's political connections. Without that 'success' he's
batting
zero on every other business deal he has had his hands on.

I realize it isn't quite as good as turning $1000 into $100,000 in 10 months
investing in cattle futures, but I guess his investors with have to settle
for only tripling their investment over 8 years.

todd

Todd Fatheree wrote:

"NotMe" wrote in message ...


"Todd Fatheree" wrote:



People took Mr. Reagan seriously, he was an actor, not a very good


actor


but an actor none the less.

And a great president.



People take Mr. Bush seriously, he's a failed oil company exec.,


failed


baseball team exec. perhaps the worst president in the history of the


United States and he seems to think that god directs him personally.

Let's see. He and a group of investors bought the Rangers in 1989 for


$86


million. In 1998, they sold it for $250 million. Sounds successful to


me.

Yea he nailed a 5% (very) minority interest in the team as part of a deal
for his daddy's political connections. Without that 'success' he's


batting


zero on every other business deal he has had his hands on.



I realize it isn't quite as good as turning $1000 into $100,000 in 10 months
investing in cattle futures, but I guess his investors with have to settle
for only tripling their investment over 8 years.

todd




Damn..I hate to further the OT post but gotta get my 2 cents in cuz I'm
****ed off at the local stadium deals (rant mode on)

Yea, Hillary's deal was obviously "crooked" in some way. As many of
these deals, including many of Bush's, it most likely skirted the edges
of the law..maybe even bent laws (which tend to be bent in the favor of
these kind of money deals anyway). What does Hillary getting away with
such a deal have to do with Bush? 2 wrongs don't make a right.

With regards to The Bush profits in the baseball business....Most of
those profits came via the Govt paying for and essentially giving away a
brand new stadium to the team (as happens in most major cities). The
Bush part appears to have been political clout to push this through more
easily. Bush's "success" in this area was more related to getting a huge
government windfall handout than actual managerial success. Of course
one could argue that going for the brass ring of a government handout IS
good management. All it tells me is that the notion of corporate
welfare being a good thing has been part of the Bush policy as long as
there have been Bush's with money to invest.

Conservatives like to argue against "welfare" it appears, but you rarely
hear one speak against corporate welfare of which the stadium thing is
one of the clearest examples. Tax revenues from professional sports
teams are generally used to justify spending on such stadiums but I
haven't heard of a case yet where those revenues weren't GROSSLY
inflated to justify the expendatures and the city/county/state didn't
end up losing money in the long run. When confronted with the realities
that the revenus aren't meeting the proposal, it's usually shifted to
the notion that "it increases the status of the city to have these teams
so the loss is worth it".

In Seattle, the people voted AGAINST paying for a baseball stadium yet
the govt ignred that vote and did it anyway, ripping off the public to
support a private corporation. From what I've heard (and I can't say
it's true at all...maybe someone from TX can shed more light on it), the
Bush stadium deal was similar. The question should not be whether Bush
wa a good manager but whether Bush was willing to rip the public for
profit in this instance as it appears is continued in the current govt
agenda.

A true conservative should be screaming just as loudly about these
corporate sweetheart deals as they do about "welfare mamas" and should
be kicking the arse of politicians (like Bush in my opinion) that appear
to further such deals.


Koz

In article , Koz
wrote:

Todd Fatheree wrote:

Conservatives like to argue against "welfare" it appears, but you rarely
hear one speak against corporate welfare of which the stadium thing is
one of the clearest examples. Tax revenues from professional sports
teams are generally used to justify spending on such stadiums but I
haven't heard of a case yet where those revenues weren't GROSSLY
inflated to justify the expendatures and the city/county/state didn't
end up losing money in the long run. When confronted with the realities
that the revenus aren't meeting the proposal, it's usually shifted to
the notion that "it increases the status of the city to have these teams
so the loss is worth it".

In Seattle, the people voted AGAINST paying for a baseball stadium yet
the govt ignred that vote and did it anyway, ripping off the public to
support a private corporation. From what I've heard (and I can't say
it's true at all...maybe someone from TX can shed more light on it), the
Bush stadium deal was similar. The question should not be whether Bush
wa a good manager but whether Bush was willing to rip the public for
profit in this instance as it appears is continued in the current govt
agenda.

A true conservative should be screaming just as loudly about these
corporate sweetheart deals as they do about "welfare mamas" and should
be kicking the arse of politicians (like Bush in my opinion) that appear
to further such deals.


A true conservative would argue that it is NEVER the role of
government, federal or state or local, to do things like build sports
stadiums, or build research parks, or do anything of this sort.

Doesn't matter whether the voters of Seattle, in your example, voted
FOR or AGAINST such a sports stadium.

(And if another people favor building such a thing, they can organize a
corporation to do just such a thing, purchase shares in the
corporation, purchase the land on the open market, etc.)

(This model was mostly followed in the case of San Francisco and the
recently-built SBC Park baseball stadium, aka PacBell Park--this is the
ballpark where home runs plop into the water and boaters snag them.
After years and years of votes on whether to build a new stadium for
the privately-owned Giants baseball team, with the votes failing, a
private group organized and got corporate involvement/status. And the
new park was built mostly on budget and is a roaring success. Part of
it being private is that it was built where it would be most
successful, as opposed to the usual pork-barrel process which so often
puts a park in a "blighted" neighborhood as part of some scam^H^H^H
scheme to do "urban renewal." SBC Park was instead put where it could
be close to upscale restaurants, and the whole area (South of Market,
SOMA) is booming.)

Of course, this "true conservative" point of view is really
libertarianism, the same idea the Founders had, that government is to
be limited and has no powers in a lot of areas.

Including using the treasury to disburse money to fire or flood
victims, to build ballparks, or to build circuses and distribute bread.

And, no, "provide for the general welfare" does not mean these things.
Cf. the Constitution, including the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.


--Tim May

"Todd Fatheree"

| Let's see. He and a group of investors bought the Rangers in 1989 for
| $86 million. In 1998, they sold it for $250 million. Sounds successful
to
| me.
|
| Yea he nailed a 5% (very) minority interest in the team as part of a
deal
| for his daddy's political connections. Without that 'success' he's
| batting zero on every other business deal he has had his hands on.
|
| I realize it isn't quite as good as turning $1000 into $100,000 in 10
months
| investing in cattle futures, but I guess his investors with have to settle
| for only tripling their investment over 8 years.

If you're talking about the Rangers deal those were not *his* investors.
Bush was along for the ride on a good old boy deal for his daddy's
connections.

As to the rest might ask some of the folk that invested in Bush's deals just
how well they 'really' did. Most, if not all, lost but he OTOH came out
like a rose.

Me/mine were in the oil patch when he was busy in Midland. Me/mine made
money by selling his projects short. Basically if he was involved we either
avoided the deals or took the other side. Nothing personal just wise
watching.

In article ,
"Pete" wrote:

"Shawn Hirn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Gunner Asch wrote:

Liberals are the poster children for hate speech.

Nonsense! We didn't invade another country under false pretenses. Going
to war under false pretenses is the ultimate act of hate.


All the contemporary histories I've read show that LBJ lied to congress
about the Gulf of Tonkin (I think it was) incident as an excuse to escalate
our involvement in Vietnam. The "ultimate act of hate"?

Yes, that too, but I was a bit too young to worry about it at the time
and LBJ is dead now. Sad that we learned NOTHING from that horrible
episode in our history.

In article ,
Strabo wrote:

Actually, "we" learned a lot, however, the federal system
has evolved to preclude effective control of politicians
by the voting public.

I give you the illegal alien invasion as an example. 80%
of the public is for closing the border with Mexico but
Bush and politicians will not.

We have the government we deserve. Sad, but true.

Well, it looks like the bankruptcies are coming....ready to bail out
the banks and insurance companies?

Mortgages go unpaid in storm-hit areas
By John Waggoner, USA TODAY

Past-due commercial mortgage loans in the hurricane-plagued Gulf have
risen sharply, says Standard & Poor's, the Wall Street credit rater.
And that could mean problems for lenders.

Past-due loans in areas affected by Katrina have soared to $320.5
million in September, up from $53.7 million in August. "We expect that
quite a few of those will become delinquent," says Larry Kay, director
of structured finance ratings at S&P.

Lenders often package commercial loans into commercial mortgage-backed
securities, or CMBSs. S&P makes credit ratings on CMBSs, including the
likelihood of loan defaults. The effect of defaults on the overall CMBS
market should be minimal, Kay says. Of the $320 billion in CMBSs that
S&P rates, $2.25 billion is from Katrina-affected areas.

But the leap in past-due loans reflects problems lenders may have in
commercial mortgages there. For example, lenders typically demand that
borrowers in flood-prone areas have flood insurance. But federal flood
insurance covers up to $500,000 in damage. Some businesses may have far
more damage than that and may not have additional private flood
insurance.

S&P identified 260 commercial loans in CMBSs secured by property in
hurricane-stricken areas. Companies that service those loans hadn't
been able to reach 15% to 20% of the borrowers, S&P says. Another 20%
of borrowers reported significant damage, including a portion of the
roof blown off or no roof at all.

Normally, the companies that service the loans have to advance
delinquent payments to CMBS investors as long as they think the
advances will be recovered. Federal and state authorities have urged
lenders to use restraint with storm-stricken borrowers.

Securities backed by residential mortgages should suffer little effect
from Katrina, S&P says. These bundled pools of mortgages, a favorite of
pension funds and mutual funds, are widely diversified, and few have
much exposure to Katrina.

About a third of commercial mortgages examined by S&P are secured by
lodging properties, such as hotels. Some hotels will get business in
coming weeks from government agencies, contractors and emergency
workers. But the drop in tourist dollars could seriously hurt
commercial borrowers: Convention travel brought $4.9 billion to New
Orleans in 2004.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., which regulates state-chartered
banks, says it has no current data suggesting problems with commercial
loans in hurricane areas. But bank analysts say it's a matter of time
before defaults start rising. "There will be increased default rates in
all types of loans," says Jefferson Harralson, bank analyst for Keefe
Bruyette & Woods.

Some commercial and industrial loans, for example, are secured by
inventories or ongoing business revenue, which may not be covered by
insurance. "The banking industry has never relied more on insurance to
fulfill loan commitments," Harralson says.