OT - Katrina and Insurance Claims

Page 3 of 5  


actor
failed
$86
me.
*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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Todd Fatheree wrote:

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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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 shit out of you for torturing the cat." Gunner
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Look at Bush's dealings in the oil business.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

actor
failed
$86
me.
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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"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?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Todd Fatheree" <> wrote:

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

actor
failed
$86
batting
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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Todd Fatheree wrote:

Damn..I hate to further the OT post but gotta get my 2 cents in cuz I'm pissed 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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 18:41:08 GMT, "John Emmons"

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 shit out of you for torturing the cat." Gunner
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

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 shit out of you for torturing the cat." Gunner
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

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?
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 shit out of you for torturing the cat." Gunner
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Gunner Asch wrote:

I love it. No matter how much the Republicans screw up, it's still the fault of the Left.
That is pitiful.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

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 shit out of you for torturing the cat." Gunner
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Gunner Asch wrote:

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
sounds like people who had flood insurance will be compensated for flood damage and people who don't won't
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

as it should be. damn well better not pay out for coverage that wasn't bought just to look good. we'll all pay for that.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

And the politicians who do that will pay for it, one way or another.
--Tim May
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.