fyatuk

yes that group that think like him are often called the far right, believed in the same area as fascism. He made me switch my party affiliation. There are definitely similarities in the whole authoritarian outlook on things. Dems used to be thought of as the authoritarian party until recently. Bust still not even close to Fascism. I stil think Bush has only made 2 big mistakes. Not agreeing to re-instate the upper tax brackets to help reduce the budget shortfall, and the timing of the invasion of Iraq. Other than that he hasn't really been any worse than any other President and has done a much better job than I originally thought he would. He just should have listened to Powell more than Rumsfeld/Cheney leading up to Iraq. Either way, I'm voting Dem most likely next time. Very few Republicans I'd vote for to follow up on the inroads Bush managed to make on 3rd rail issues.

Texas won it's independence with the help of American forces flooding into the land and helping the Texans kick Mexico out. The Texan Republic was in name only. The only reason Texas became independent was because people from other parts of America went in and wanted protection and statehood in the land, so they began a war. It sounds to me like you just have an unexplainable hatred for Israel. One of the major reasons for the war was because American Immigrants were being treated as second class citizens, and in fact laws were passed to make it illegal for American Immigrants to be there (avoids segueing into commentary on current immigration law). Since they had already made a home there, they refused, and the Mexican people in Texas for the most part agreed because Texas intself was not represented int he government. The War was originally a drive to allow American Immigrants full rights as Mexican citizens and to separate Texas from Coahila state to have a more local government beneath the Mexican National government. Even without the Americans, the war would have taken place because of the representation/distant governor issue. Might not have been won though. But Santa Anna pissed everyone off, so they decided to pursue independence. After the war, they applied for statehood with the US, and were rejected. The US wanted an independent buffer that they didn't have to defend between them and Mexico. After a few years, the US changed it's mind and ASKED Texas to join. That's why TX ended up with several benefits other states don't have.

ya so the british were kind enough to give the jews a homeland. how noble of them. my point still remains that you cannot compare texas which won her independence and israel which relied on the charity of another nation. Most countries in the world have had their land "given" to them. All of Africa, the Middle east, the south pacific. All the borders in those regions were drawn by colonialists. That's actually one of the big problems with the Middle East is borders were forced instead of evolvoing naturally.

He's not a republican. He's a republican about gay marriage and god and that is it. Any real conservative or republican should be disgusted with him and his presidency. He might not fit the ideological view of a Republican, but there is a significant minority of Republicans who think just like him about most issues, including the whole big government thing. He is not unique in that. It's not like the entire Democrat Party agrees on everything. The only thing they agree on right now is "Thank God Bush can't run again!" I'm neither republican nor democrat, conservative or liberal really, though I lean a little more towards liberal. I'd definitely be considered a middle ground person. And I am not disgusted by his Presidency. I think Bush has done more to help the country down the road than Clinton ever did. Most of the things I have issues with in the past several years are things Bush doesn't really have direct control over. I really just wish he'd consent to put at least one of the upper tax brackets he removed back in, preferably both, but I'd settle for one...

LMAO this thread is one big liberal orgasm. LOL! I was thinking along those lines myself. I keep thinking, yep, because of the invasion of Iraq we're paying $3 (here in town)/gallon instead of about $2.90 at the pump. And we really need that minimum pay raise that only helps union workers (from first hand experience having been working at minimum wage during a hike, and just above minimum wage at another, it doesn't help those people). Oh yeah, and it's nice to suggest making sure the budget stays balanced and the deficit doesn't grow, but the way that was phrased we'd never get out of debt. That being said, Bush is unfortunately a big government republican (remember the days when that didn't exist) who needs to allow some of his tax cuts to be repealed, quit this constitutional amendment declaring some people inferior bs, etc. Meanwhile it would be nice if the Dems acutally allowed more refineries to be built, and open up the area designated for oil drilling around 1980 to drilling, etc. And most importantly actually found some unity within the party so that people actually know what Democrat means again.

and with all due respect to our Texans (And San Antonio move supporters) stop the hyjack, take your SA talk to another thread. Yeah, sorry about that. I kept meaning to ask Longhorn to move it to a more private method since I know you guys don't want to hear that kind of talk, just kept forgetting. It's too bad the tax rebate didn't get voted on in the house, since it was almost assuredly going to pass there. Hopefully it won't affect things and they can get the rebate through next year.

The elements for a successful sports network are all there as you listed them. And I agree with you that advertising budgets would be much larger in S. Fl. ......the key here though is Mexico and that is where Henry Cisneros comes in with his previous position with Univision. I also believe that it is likely......that Clear Channel would be willing to take an initial hit to make this happen....ESPECIALLY if they have a minority stake in the club. And the market will grow to where it will be a winner for them. It definitely does have potential. Especially if you can draw strongly on the Austin crowd by working in their teams. It'd need to be truly regional and not just SA. You know you could easily get loyal RGV following with just the Spurs. And the mexico broadcasting rights would definitely be needed. I agree that if Clear Channel were to do something like that, they would certainly be willing to take a bit of a hit for at least a few years, especially if they had a stake in the team, but not for more than that. If they don't see profitability in a venture, I can't see them doing it. They'd be in a dogfight with FSN though.

Why are you so sure that the tv contract would be "much" smaller? You are ignoring the fact that Clear Channel (the largest media conglomerate in the world) is up to their necks in making this deal happen. A likely scenario would be that Clear Channel would create its own sports network for the centex and sotex areas with the Marlins and the Spurs. Fox is not going to be able to come up with enough money for this deal........but Clear Channel sure can. This is the wave of the future in sports anyway.....much like the Yankees and the YES network. Clear Channel already owns a percentage of the Spurs......in exchange for creating the network I am sure they would be willing to become a minority shareholder of the Marlins. These types of issues is why the May 15th deadline wont be made.....but they are also exactly the reason why the interest hasnt diminished on the part of the Marlins. I have to admit that's a possibility I didn't think of. Especially when Clear Channel is one of the companies wanting a second team in town. Of course I've been wanting a South/Central TX regional sports channel to come into existance anyway. I'd love to see more high school sports/universities besides UT and UTSA/news on the Wranglers, Express, Missions, Rampage, Silver Stars, etc. But I'd still assume it'd be a much smaller contract. You would quite seriously have to include a huge area to even come close to the amount of households just the Miami CMSA has (SA, Austin, Corpus, and Laredo DMAs), and the majority of that area is way outside the key demographics advertisers look for. The only way you get close to the Marlins current contract (I'm assuming since I don't know the actual deal) would be to have a separate contract for TV/Radio into Mexico, and that's probably iffy at best. You are not going to be able to command anywhere near the advertising dollars in SA that you can in Miami, which means a new channel would have to rely much more on cable fees or run at an operating loss. Plus, you'd have to deal with the Spurs contract with FSN to move them to a new channel, and new channels in general won't command big $ advertising, so that's already a big notch of even the potential contract. why do you want marlin ??are you going make money if their move to texas? is not going happen in my life Am I personally going to make money? It's a distinct possibility, but probably not enough to worry about. But it's not about it being "The Marlins". It's about getting a second major league team in general, either NFl or MLB since no way NHL works here yet. It's all about amenities provided for businesses. We need a second team because the Spurs cannot provide the necessary entertainment/meeting time for all the businesses, and we have a huge gap during the summer (one reason I'd prefer MLB). It makes it harder to bring new corporations into town and several large corporations have hinted about possibly leaving (though I don't really believe them). It's about continuing economic growth. By bringing new businesses in, the city collects more taxes. These businesses usually have high wages than what's currently earned in town, so other companies have to raise their pay rates to continue competing for the skilled workers the companies desire. It's all a catalyst effect, but to keep the business growth going, we need to provide the types of things the high powered execs want to see. High-end shopping centers (like The Rim is going to be), world class golf courses (TPC, and a few resorts), and major league sporting events.

I dont know that the reception for the NFL would be quite what you think it is. For one thing, either the NFL or MLB is going to require a new stadium. The Judge is on record as saying that it makes more sense to build a $300 million dollar facility for a franchise that will brings 81 event days than a $700 million dollar facility for a franchise that brings 10 event days. I am not sure a stadium with that type of price tag would be palatable to the voting public. That's not necessarily true, though probably is. I for one would rather see $250-300 million put in to improve the Alamodome and make it NFL caliber than put $200 into a baseball stadium. Making improvements to the Alamodome would make it a more desireable location for conferences and such, and increase the value/payout of the Alamobowl. Also if UTSA does indeed start a football program, that's where they would play at least initially. Besides, the Alamodome is a big part of our economy (in terms of generating income for city residents), but a drain on city resources itself without a primary tenant. I'd really like to see either an NFL team in a refurbished Alamodome, or an MLS team in the current Alamodome. Most people I know would approve either item that you suggest though. They recognize the importance of bringing a second team to town and are willing to pay to get it done. Well, except my roommate who would vote against baseball, but would vote for football. Either way, like I said, I think baseball would be better for SA, and I'm hoping we somehow get a team. But I still think more people would be willing to pay for an NFL stadium, and NFL tickets would pretty much get sold out every game (full season tickets for football are cheaper than 20 game packs for baseball, and there are definitely more football fans than baseball around here). MLB would be lucky to sell out weekend games in SA. All my opinions of course. Either way, it still makes much more sense for the Marlins to settle for Hialeah and keep the current TV contract and still be able to draw the same audience and people, even as small a crowd as they average, then it does to move to SA for a much smaller TV contract where the crowds aren't likely to be that much bigger than last year's average, if at all.

may be you are that judge want this team so badly that you not going get . gave it up so you say in press that white flag have been post out side city hall i bet you read alot miami newpaper like i do too your san antonio express paper so wait ontill mlb baseball expand to more team and you can have party but not for marlins I'm not sure if this is a good thing or not, but I'm starting to understand your posts.... Most likely SA will have a committment from either an NFL or an MLB team by 2010. So I'm not overly concerned with any particular team. I personally would rather have an expansion team, and NFL is more likely to expand if they are as obsessed with LA as they have been now that Tags is retiring. I think MLB would be better for SA though NFL wouldhave a much better reception.

I need a bridge badly, see I bought this ocean front property in arizona and I am told I a need a bridge to cross my island home to the mainland :shifty I thought the Golden Gate Bridge came with that AZ oceanfront... :mischief2 Or did you do something to George's dog? He loves that dang dog...

If what I'm reading above is a tax rebate, perhaps we are using the wrong terminology subsidy. Sudsidy is not a Tax rebate. Under the subsidy method: for example people from the Panhandle who pay taxes are not going to benefits from subsidy forwarded to Orlando/Tampa/Miami. Again this is under the Subsidy method, however, if indeed it is a tax rebate then call it what it is. My entire comment was based on sudsidy not rebates. Depending on how Florida sales tax is set up, its still a subsidy. Since I know Texas law, I'll use it. under Texas law, the state collects 6.25% sales tax and cities are allowed to collect up to 2%. All of this money goes to the state initially, then the city's share is refunded back. Let's say they state decided it would refund a certain amount of sales tax to the Spurs, or the Cowboys, from sales tax earned on site. At least 3/4 of that would be state money, being given to support a local team. That's unacceptable. However I wouldn't mind if say, San Antonio decided to refund a portion of it's share of the sales tax earned at the AT&T Center to the Spurs, or some other situation. Like I said though, depends on how FL tax is set up.

Yet it hasn't been transferred. Public statements from Codina say he has no plans to sell the land to the city, let alone donate it free of cost! Cheerleaders for the deal have proposed that he will, but that seems more like their own wishes than anything else. I don't see Codina giving up something for nothing. No kidding. I've seen news articles saying that part of the land is already designated to be turned over to Hialeah to give to the Marlins and Codina is all set to go. But I remember seeing an article that quoted Codina as saying he had no intention of selling or donating land for a ballpark...

A sales tax rebate from sales taxes generated by the revenue at a site which would not be there otherwise is not a tax on State residents. As far a Jeb's political career, yea, right, it killed his brother's career when George got the stadium built for the Rangers. There should be on amendment to the bill-to stop sending Wayne the rebate he is still getting. The Rangers stadium had nothing to do with anything at the state level though. Heck, I don't think it had anything to do with the whole Metroplex. Probably just Arlington. Of course Arlington has the money to fund that crap (RICH city there), hence why they are getting the Cowboys too. And was it George who actually got the stadium? I thought he had already divested his share (requirement for him to run for governor) before the deal went through, but that was a decade ago back when I was still in high school and not a big baseball fan, so I'm not sure. Even back then he only owned like 10%...

rferry , and fyatuk what's your take. I respect your fair and balance objectivity. In most cases I'd be against using state funds as well, at least as a subsidy or grant. Texas has the TEF which can be used to loan money (and is completely under the control of the Governor, no votes necessary), as well as for grants, etc. I don't mind using state funds to guarantee loans, etc, but flat out subsidy or grant is wrong. The Saints however are a special case. I can understand and accept the subsidy there because the Saints pull in fans from neighboring states on a weekly basis, etc, to an area that provides over half the state's entire budget. I think they have a large enough impact for the state to justify it. Though granted, not at the levels given with all the other benefits they have. That's just my opinion. Of course, here in Texas one reason Perry is not looking good for re-election is because he said he'd donate money (as in a grant) from the TEF to help upgrade the Alamodome is the Saints moved here. Houston and Dallas starting spitting venom at that, rightfully, and he backed out of that statement a week later. But it illustrates the point. Providing state money to a specific region gor something that only benefits that region is usually a bad idea politically.

Hmmmmm.....has to be approved by Gov. Bush? I wonder if W has called him and told him which way he would like to see this go? Might be a great opportunity for W to get something done for his homestate before he leaves office. Not a chance W. would do that. He's a Texas Rangers homer, remember? Besides, don't you think him working in tax breaks for oil refining in that energy bill he got passed is enough of something for Texas?

:lol :lol :lol Sore loser! BTW, Ebbets Field was also built on a landfill. :thumbup I'm not sure how that's a shot. The proposed site is/was a landfill, isn't it? Or at least very polluted land. Also note that he said "I don't think I want to ask them". Aka he knows the team would probably prefer to play in an active landfill (not that the site is, this is not a dig, this is a hypothetical) in Florida than come to SA. He's just trying to get a little more optimism back into the SA populace.

Move the Jags out there so I can see all the Dolphins games. LA needs to just build a stadium so an NFL team can move right in instead of playing in the POS Olympic Stadium for a half a decade until a real stadium is built. Get it done, NFL and California. Jags, I think you guys are great, but GTFO. nah, the Jags should move to San Antonio. They should have been here from the start :whistle Chargers look very nearly gone from San Diego, so they're a good possibility to move to LA. They probably don't want to. I don't think any owner but Davis WANTS to move to LA, but they all want someone else to

Ignorance is met with disdain. Which is why most people from SA can get rather... shall we say aggressive... when people start spouting stupid crap about our town. Perfectly understandable. Shouldn't just insult places you haven't been recently.

Article is three days old. I'm surprised one of the SA homers (not you fyatuk) didn't post this article, they usually are on top of things like this. I wonder why..... :mischief Glad to hear I'm not thought of as a homer. I did mention this in the post about the Ken Rodriguez article (I think it was there), but didn't have the link handy. It's in the SA Business journal too.

That's my thought. All Williams big games last year were against crap teams. He did nothing against the good teams the Wolfpack played. If the Texans weren't going to take Bush, they should have traded down. Yeah. I'll agree with that. They would have been better if they traded with NYJ (who wanted and have an obvious need for Bush), and picked up d'brick @ 4, DL with the jets second 1st rounder, and probably gotten another pick either this year or next as well. Apparently they fell in love with Williams, who was going to be the Saints choice @ 2, so the only way to get him was to draft him #1. That's my biggest problem with the pick, but Williams definitely helps the Texans more than Bush would have. But you have to feel sorry for Bush. Not only did he not get picked #1, but gets put in the worst situation possible. On a team with an average at best defense and in a decision with 3 teams that could likely all be in the top 5 defensively and each team has a lot of weapons on offense. Poor guy. And poor Leinart. All the rumors that he wanted to be a star more than a football player and he ends up in what I'd say is the worst place for that. Lowly Arizona that averages half the league-wide average in attendence and gets no national media coverage...

where is the logic in this paragraph? Bush has excelled at every level he has played at. Peewee, High School, and college. While he hasn't made the best character moves over the past few weeks, he will be not only good, he will be great my friend. To be completly honest with you, he isnt even my favorite guy in the draft. That title belongs to Matt Linehart, another star. This draft, in my opinion, will go down in history as one of the greatrest talent pools to ever be drafted. It had every type of player imaginable and it had legitimatly four or five guys that would have been number one picks any other year. But I am rambling, I would like to hear your logic though on the Bush matter though. Bush doesn't break tackles. He avoids them well, but he doesn't break many. LT, Barry Sanders, etc, all break tackles. Bush had 2 good runs in the Rose Bowl against a good defense. Both were on 3rd and long with the defense playing nothing but pass. Any number of backs could have broken those. If you ignore those 2 runs, since you're looking at what he can do on a normal basis compared to other people, and those were easy runs, his per carry average in the Rose Bowl was below 4. Not impressive. And that may be against an excellent college defense, but that doesn't even compare to NFL defenses. Reggie Bush NEEDS space to be effective. In the NFL you don't get space very often. And since teams will key in on him, he'll get less than others will. I'm more impressed with him as a receiver than a runner. I'm still not sold on Leinart either. He sails the ball a little too much, etc. But he's in pretty much an ideal situation for his development though. He should be a good fit for the Cards. Same thing with Vince Young. Not sold on him (I think he'll succeed, but I have doubts), but he's in a pretty good situation with the Titans.

Yeah, they passed on Reggie Bush for Aundray Bruce Mario Williams. Texans fail. I don't understand that thinking. The Williams pick improves the Texans a lot more than Bush would have. He was rated just behind Bush on most draft cards and ahead of Bush on 6 or 7. All of Bush's abilities fit in places where the Texans already have good players, while they seriously needed help on the defensive front 7 and the offensive line, both of which they addressed on the first day. The Texans did more to improve their team in the draft than any other team. Bush is overated anyway. He's not going to live up to the hype. Not saying he wont' be good, but he's not going to be as big a gamebreaker as people think. Then again, Williams is probably not going to live up to the hype either.

Meh, it's Ken Rodriguez. He's always says bad crap about other cities that are totally messed up. He's rarely worth reading really. I think he's a native Floridian though. Might have that confused with someone else though...

I don't get it I keep waiting for them to say just kidding, we are taking Bush Out of curiosity...is this a binding contract considering he isn't actually a member of the team until he is drafted? Even if they do agree does that mean they still have to pick him? This just doesn't make any sense. As the #1 pick they CAN sign a player. If they sign a player, they are then required to take him for the #1 pick. Since it has been announced they signed Williams, the Saints can now negotiate with anybody else and sign a player if they choose, etc. The Texans were never going to draft Bush. It made no sense for them, not much of an upgrade anywhere. They needed serious help on both lines, and decided Williams was their man. They couldn't trade down because the Saints also were targetting Williams.