SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (38972)8/20/2002 3:00:18 PM
From: JohnM  Read Replies (2) of 281500
 
1. Krugman claimed that Bush was a sitting governer when he got the Ranger's $12 million

Let's look at the text of the claims.

1. "We were among Bush's partners. In 1989, when we bought the team, Bush became the co-general partner with Edward Rose. At that time, the two general partners were granted a 15 percent share in the investment, after each investor got back his investment plus interest. This is a standard limited-partnership structure.

"At the time, Bush was a private citizen, not governor of Texas.


The point here is to refute thus any charges that Bush's political ties had anything to do with anything. Obviously, false.

2. "When we sold the team in 1998, Bush received his 10 percent share. This was not 'a $12 million gift' to 'a sitting governor.' Bush had a good idea and the ability to make it happen. He was a dedicated manager and investor, exactly what we hope for in our business leaders."

Hmm, and who should we believe that it was not a gift? His buddies in the deal. I think not. Will be interesting to see Krugman's reply.

But to get a genuinely interesting take on just how wacky this whole thing is, let me repost the last paragraph.

"So, not only has Krugman the liar been caught out, The New York Times has to be in cahoots. After all, Krugman surely knew that Bush was not governor at the time, but he threw it in anyway to give his lies a boost. Calling a standard business practice 'a $12 million gift' is further proof that Krugman is not a person to be trusted, a la Marc Rich. Not only does this liar have no shame about his Enron connection - I wonder whom they learned all that constructive accounting from? - he tries to libel President Bush as a tool of bribing businessmen. If the Times were not as desperate to destroy George W.'s presidency, Krugman would have been long gone. But it's never too late. The paper of false record has been caught in flagrante. Krugman should get a job in Hollywood, where bald-faced phonies and liars like him are considered Tinseltown aristocracy."

This is worse than bad journalism.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext