Posted on 07/23/2002 6:53:22 PM PDT by rdavis84
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:08:00 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
First, if this is credible and truthful, why didn't Team Gore use it against the President during the 2000 campaign?
Who was that young investigator who sought to build a quick name for herself by investigating G. W. when G. H. W. Bush was President? Her investigation came up empty.
Hasn't the SEC both investigated and cleared the President of any wrongdoing?
Did the then private citizen G. W. Bush make or lose money on this deal (Harken)?
What makes you think that the Slime Factory (Clinton-Clinton-Carville) didn't pursue this with vigor?
What's the REAL angle of your Far-Rightists? Does it not sicken you to know that this pursuit of yours helps the RATS? Apparently not, for throwing all you can throw, you still wait in hopes that something will stick.
You call it turning a blind eye by FReepers. But I think not. In the apparent indignation, many if not most here see completely through the transparency. But, by all means, keep it up.
Not only that, but we have Far-Rightists here who want to shackle his hands to this bag.
I'm sure you won't be surprised to note that all of this is featured on democrats.com. Kinda makes you wonder, doesn't it?
Are you serious? With the baggage of crimes Gore was carrying via the First Felons, plus some of his own of the "no controlling legal authority" kind, Gore was hardly in a position to challenge Bush on any ethical infraction.
If I'm considered a "Far-Rightist" it's because the republican party has shifted so far to the left in the last 20 years that any conservative that held steadfast to the belief of a limited government is by today's standards a radical. Unlike many in here these days I don't attach my political identity to " the party” or place my beliefs subservient to party interests. I call it as I see it and let the cards fall where they may.
Big Time Bump on that.
O.K. Sorry. I made a mistake. Bush just had a few little breaks come his way. No big deal. He'll get the bad guys. And after he serves his Nation for 12, 16, maybe 20 yrs. as president, guiding us back to a Constitutional Republic, he'll buy into another baseball team and retire. We're just Blessed that he's such a good, honest president, just taking care of his sheep (that would be us).
How's that?
Like I said, keep it up. I'm enjoying this!
Of course I'm serious!
Where on earth have you been? You think that the media didn't want to give Gore a pass here? They did, and carried Gore's water.
Speaking of which, how on earth did Hitlary! get elected using your same scenario?
Anyway, you are on the Far-Right, and you're now helping the RATS yet don't seem to see that you are. But it doesn't matter. Keep it up, PLEASE!
O.K.
It's really amazingly stupid these people try to claim Bush was "cashing in" at $4 a share when the stock would later go up to $8 a share, well after the sell. Oh well. Some people thrive on stupidity and dishonesty, as you can see from this thread.
Wrong Galbraith. You're thinking of John Kenneth G.; this is James G.
1) Got a loan based on his shares of Harken stock
2) Was on the Harken board because his name was bush (which is connected to 1 how?)
3) Used the loan to buy the Texas Rangers (nothing illegal here)
4) Sold the Rangers at a profit (A-HAH! Now I see the allegation. Bush is a successful CAPITALIST. We must eviscerate him!!!!!!!!!)
Sorry, but I don't see what I'm supposed to refute.
Shalom.
No, it's correctly called "CRONY CAPITALIST". And that denotes in his case that he did nothing astute nor contributory to earn his millions on the back of the suckers. IT WAS A GIFT.
Those who continue to try to paint GWBush as an adept Capitalist are doing a major diservice to good old American Capitalism.
He'll appreciate it, I'm sure.
At any rate, keep marching on the margins and aiding/abetting the RATS.
I'm missing some piece of your slam here. Bush bought something and sold it for more. Whether he engineered it's increase in worth (like actually improving the team himself) or simply benefitted from changes in the system (like holding on to a good stock or an antique piece of furniture) doesn't change the fact that he's a successful capitalist. He made money by a very legal transaction. You started out insinuating that something was illegal, now you've moved to claiming cronyism. But the fact remains, he bought the Rangers and sold them at a profit. Perfectly reasonable and capitalistic - not to mention legal.
Now, if you could find out where he had a loan forgiven by a S&L that was run by a friend after the Rangers lost money, then claimed the loan default to reduce his taxes or something - THAT would be worth talking about even if you couldn't ever get court approved evidence.
Shalom.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.