TxHoops

😂

Hey, I am pleasantly surprised you support their right of redress there! I would agree that's the best venue to handle such issues.

You do know the judicial branch is a part of the "government"? That judges are paid by the "government"?

I refer you to 90 percent of the threads on this board. And again, you may disagree, but volume (at least the volume you have provided) is very, very telling.

There is a pretty good book on the whole Rangers fiasco. I can't remember the name or the author but I believe I have a copy somewhere. I will see if I can find it or find the title at least online. As far as Hicks goes, I suppose he thought he could rescue the franchise. Ultimately, he couldn't but the franchise was sold at a bankruptcy auction for close to $600M as I recall. That price includes the debt which was being assumed by the Nolan Ryan group. The bankruptcy was originally forced when the Rangers defaulted on $525M in debt. I sense that you seem to think any time I bring up "facts" like this, you are skeptical I am making things up. (However, I applaud your skepticism and believe being skeptical is a good thing.) Feel free to double check everything I have stated. Some of what I set forth (numbers) was done from memory but I know I am very close at the very least. I won't comment on your post being primarily a deflection to President Obama because I know that's how the subject of Bush began in the first place. You reference a question I didn't answer but I don't see a question. I think I see what you are asking. Again, I described Bush with an unflattering term. I never said that labeling of him was compassionate; I said I have compassion for him (difference). And I do. You stated that was a vitriolic statement and I responded who has vitriol for the mentally challenged. Now as to the difference between my criticism the hundreds (maybe thousands) of statements you and one or two others make daily about Obama - well, there's your answer. Sometimes mere volume is telling. And the volume here suggests consummation.

Thank you for your patience. I am home later than I expected but, as promised, I will attempt to address your other points. In re-reading your posts, the other two are interrelated anyway and can be combined in my response. Essentially, W. was involved with 3 oil and gas companies prior to his time with the Rangers. None of them were successful. In fact, he dumped his shares in the last one to pay off his $600k loan he took out for his 2% share in the Rangers. Interestingly, those shares were dumped just 3 days before the company was supposed to run completely out of money. An SEC insider trading investigation ensued, but no charges were filed (shocking given his father's position). Now, on to the Rangers, he borrowed $600k for a 2 percent share in the club, and his father's cronies put up the real money. He was given the position of managing partner (or something close to that title) and was the "face" of ownership. His group took over a franchise that was embroiled in a dispute over a publicly funded stadium built on property that was seized by eminent domain. Over a decade of litigation ensued. While there, he gave us a glimpse into how he would perform in Washington (which is what I referenced in one of the posts with which you took issue). Specifically, he managed to get the organization into a mountain of debt, which helped lead the franchise into bankruptcy. However, he did manage to be a part of the sale to Tom Hicks, from which he received $15M. He "repaid" Mr. Hicks by appointing him to one of the highest positions at his beloved University of Texas. So yes, he did finally make money on a business venture with the Rangers. I know you are a sports fan and have been able to follow how sports' franchises are recession proof and have consistently appreciated in value since the inception of pro sports. In fact, there are few areas in the private sector that are comparable. But that is a discussion for another day. Finally, I will address a point you made in the other thread (one of your favorite things to do - take a point from a post that irks you and start a new thread attempting to "call out" that person). I assumed you guys could add 2 and 2 to get 4. That is to say, he ran for governor in a state that was well on its way to becoming solid red. His father, whose name he bore, was and is immensely popular. Do you really give him the credit for his ascent in politics in this state? As for his presidency (for sure his initial election), I already gave my opinion in one of my initial posts. And lighten up, Stevenash. I obviously offended you with my laughter comment. I didn't realize your skin was so thin or I wouldn't have made that joke. I do apologize for being directly offensive. I will try not to repeat that offense.

Too much. Let him go.

I know it is hard to believe for someone who spends countless hours on this board but some of is actually have other things to do with our lives. I was finishing up some work so I can now go to dinner with my family. Some time tonight, I will give you a response to your other posts. I swear when you ask a question you are like a toddler on Christmas Eve.

And I forgot to thank you - we all need more laughter in our lives!

I am actually working. I told you I would respond as soon as I get a chance. Patience Stevie. (And it doesn't matter where you find compassion - I find it easy to have for the mentally challenged.)

I do have time to address the second one. I have absolutely no hatred for W. Despite my best efforts, I still feel sorry for him. He has spent his life trying to measure up to a standard he had no hope of reaching. My compassion won't allow me to hate him...

I will respond as soon as I finish laughing. There is more fail in those three posts than a W run business. Rest assured as soon as I get a moment, I wink enlighten you. You're welcome in advance.

1). His "experience" in running businesses should have forecast how dreadful he would be as president. His experience was a comedy of failures. 2) Are you saving it for later or choosing not to recycle a post you have already used 1794 times on this board?

George W. Bush is borderline retarded and somehow got nominated by the brilliant GOPers and rode the anti-fellatio in the Oval Office wave into the White House. Once there, he found that just as he was short on brain power to run a lemonade stand, he was overwhelmed in leading the country. As such, he relied on men he knew were much smarter than he, and got us in the costliest debacle in the history of our country. A debacle that continued to bury us into the next presidency. Well, for starters...

It doesn't have to be. I think it IS more often than some of you care to admit (to yourselves or others). As for Obama being the worst ever, you guys simply are severely misguided. I use the word misguided because you only have to go back 6 years or so to find the dolt who holds that honor.

I don't even care about his policies so much. I disagree greatly with Scalia yet I respect the guy. Thomas is a waste of space and an embarrassment to the Court. A friend of mine (then a young, very bright, very attractive Jewish girl) clerked for him upon graduation from law school. She was, and remains, a devout Republican. If it is possible, she has less respect for the man than I do.

Just another example of how Austin, Texaa is one of the true jewels of this country.

I am speaking of lawyers that actually care about the process and respect the position. Lawyers have jobs to do when they are in any court. However, the best ones do truly care about "justice." A SC Justice who practically sleeps through oral arguments, rarely ever asks a question, and obviously decides almost every case based upon what result he desires rather than the facts of a particular case is a disgrace to the process. Craig - I know you are trying to be funny but I am a WASP and much "blacker" than Clarence Thomas.

We anxiously await parts 3 through 7. Chop chop Smitty.

Clarence Thomas is quite possibly the worst justice in the history of the Court. That opinion is shared by many, many lawyers from both sides of the bar.

He has shown every young boy and girl of color in this country that it is truly possible for them to ascend to the highest position in this country. Before Pres. Obama, I'm not sure that was the case. So yes, he has. And despite those of you who are consumed with vitriol for this man, and are highly offended when your motives are questioned, rest easy knowing that this aspect has been a great advancement for our country. And his election itself shows that a lot of folks in this country no longer care about skin color. We are moving closer and closer to the late, great Dr. King's dream.

Pretty funny listening to mike golic talk about how hanging with the biebs will give him a lot of street cred in the locker room.

I was reminded of a funny story when I read about Gov. Perry refusing to meet the President for a handshake. A schoolmate of mine flew home from Austin to Lubbock. He was in the bathroom when he looked over and the then-Gubenatorial candidate George W. Bush was at the urinal beside him. They finished at about the same time and made eye contact. W. extended his hand and introduced himself. My buddy replied, "No offense sir, but can you wash that hand first?"

Absolutely.

  I have said many times that neither party can have it both ways.  Reagan made many concessions to his Democratic congress during his tenure.  Clinton made many concessions to his Republican congress during his time in office.  Each party wants to credit the branch it belongs to during either presidency.  The fact of the matter is, both of those guys had distinct abilities to work across party lines to get things accomplished.  It doesn't matter if the credit was equal.  bamakid is right in that you have to credit the executive and legislative branches for any successes when they worked together.  The genius of Clinton and Reagan is that they were able to do it.  Unfortunately, we have seen polarization for the past 14 years and there is a lot of blame to go around for that as well.