yyz28

You've got it. ...because to folks who resort to name calling in political discussions, strong language is the only thing they understand? Sarcasm? Meter working? No? Anybody? Bueller?

AWESOME! Fun to watch!

Jesus Tap-Dancing Christ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Ok, everyone take a breath. Stop the name calling. If you can't argue your point without belittling the other person's point by resorting to name-calling (either the person OR the point) then do us all a favor... and STFU. ...now, having said that, let me jump in here with two feet. There is really no basis to move forward here unless we can all AGREE on some basic, fundamental points. 1. The first of which is that marriage is NOT A RIGHT. Not for straight people. Not for gay people. Marriage, at least in this country, consists of one part social (which may have a religious undertone) and one part legal. There is no enumerated call for marriage as a right in the constitution or any of its amendments. If we can't all agree on this, we can't carry this discussion further. 2. Churches, at their discretion and as they make peace with their particular God and as guaranteed by the first amendment, may choose to marry who they wish under the social side of the marriage definition. As such, while not all churches may be willing to recognize this social contract many do. ...so from a social point of view, homosexual couples can get married today. ...in fact, I know several who have and consider themselves "married" even in the state of Texas. 3. Same sex couples don't want equality, they want a broadened definition of what equal is. ...let me explain. Today, all people are treated exactly the same regarding existing marriage laws. (I'm going to discuss Texas as that's where most of us are, and at present this is still a state's issue). Every man in this nation, regardless of sexual orientation may marry a woman. Conversely, every woman in this nation may marry a man. ...so, the very definition of equality is met right here. The truth is that proponents of same sex marriage aren't fighting to be able to get "married", they are fighting to change what "married" (from a legal point of view) means. See, this is why I and many argue that you can't compare this to the civil rights movement or even the suffrage movement. There is a constitutional right to vote which was being violated on the basis of skin color and sex. There is a constitutional right to equal treatment under the law was was being violated on the basis of skin color and sex. There are no "gay sections" on busses nor airplanes. No homosexuals are denied the right to vote. Nope. None of this exists. Homosexuals aren't fighting for a "right". So, as we sit here today, the only part of this that should be a debate is do we expand the LEGAL definition of marriage to recognize a different kind of social contract that people may already enter into on their own? They are fighting for a legal status, not a right. As with all legal questions, we may all have our own ideas and thoughts on the subject, but in the end, we are all bound by the will of the majority as the voting public. (unless you live in the People's Republic of California where the will one the voters is regularly overturned by the courts) So far, the people have spoken and in 28 states where laws or constitutional amendments have been proposed, they have all passed. in other states, like California (though theirs were court mandated), Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, Illinois, and Washington (State and DC) have created legal unions for same-sex couples that offer varying subsets of the benefits and responsibilities of marriage under the laws of those jurisdictions. I think in all the rhetoric and emotion and political score-boarding we all lose sight of what is really being debated here. Based on the meltdown that had become this thread, I thought now was a good time for this post. Regarding Chick-Fil-A, I support, 100% the rights of the President and CEO to voice his opinion, and the charities that CFA gives to were certainly not secret before he was asked the question and made the statement. I also support 100% the rights of any PRIVATE CITIZEN to decide not to do business with CFA due to their stand (though again, I question how they didn't know this was CFA's stance in the first place). What I don't agree with is any action taken by a Government official, Local, State or Federal, to attempt to bully or use their power to block a company from opening locations or engage in fair business simply for voicing their opinion, particularly when the opinion AND the voicing it are both protected by the 1st Amendment.

How is this a controversy?!?! Let's see... Chick-Fil-A has always been a Christian company, and this is certainly not new or really even interesting news. The fact that the folks at the helm of the company line up ideologically with the Church, considering the company's background, which is wide-spread public knowledge is hardly a surprise. ...someone's got to help me understand what the big deal is here?

F that.. how bout we just take 'em both? Finish Strong!

LOL!

I'm not sure what happened to you that makes you feel the need to act like anyone with a differing view than yours is an idiot or needs to be talked down to, but you frankly make it to where nobody wants to even discuss an issue with you. ...I'm sure that as a result, you've blown us away with your brilliance, but in reality, people have grown tired of being abused and simply move on. ...I will try to keep this on subject - I used the Richardson market because I know it. It's my backyard. I do business with every major hotel in the 75/Campbell area and I know what Eisemann has done for the area and the hotels around it in a relatively short period of time. The Doubletree was a Radisson and not too far from being ready to be torn down, and it was rebuilt into a Doubletree which is actually quite nice. The Hyatt had gone from being the flagship of the area as the Ramada Renaissance in the 80's and 90's to having no flag and simply called the "Richardson Hotel". The business driven by the Eisemann has allowed that hotel to go under a huge renovation and reopen as a Hyatt Regency. The Courtyard and Residence Inn in the area have both been overhauled. The old Bradford Homesuites has been reflagged a Hyatt Place and renovated. The old Holiday Inn has undergone a MAJOR facelift and has been brought back essentially from the dead. ...and now, this area enjoys better RevPAR and occupancy rates than most of the area... The attached Renaissance has done quite well and has recently undergone its second full renovation since opening. ...and in fact, this development is a big reason why the 75/Campbell intersection has become the new focus in Richardson, has seen massive new development and why Blue Cross built its new HQ there despite the fact that a big portion of the Nortel campus is now vacant. ...interesting side note, these hotels continue to thrive despite not having Nortel virtually filling the hotels like they used to count on. Your point about Embassy is a bit off, as many do have full blown restaurants, offer room service and the like today. Most that are joined to convention centers do. They are as "full service" as a Hilton or Marriott. Using Frisco as your example is interesting, because where that hotel is has all the things you say is needed for this to succeed, and by your own assessment, it isn't. Shopping. Sports. Restaurants. ...yet it isn't doing well, while my example in Richardson had NONE of those things UNTIL Eisemann came into existence. ...and regarding development, I'm not "100% flat wrong" about that. I'll give you that there is often OVER development, but again, you're comparing parts of the country who have been hit hardest by the recent recession to our market which has fared far better than the average. ...and often, this type of anchor does spawn development. Will it this time for sure? i don't know... I don't know that it will any more than you KNOW that it won't. Finally, and I won't speak for him, but I think you misunderstood what GreenMachine was trying to say. He WAS including the crap-holes in the area, which is why he was arguing that comparing overall RevPAR for down/uptown Dallas to what this single hotel is forecasting isn't exactly apples to apples. Lets try and keep this civil. I don't think you're an idiot. I don't think anyone here with a different idea is an idiot. Let's keep the conversation on point and civil, or its going to get locked down, and that would be a real shame. Thanks!

I've been in all 3 of those hotels, plus the relatively new Holiday Inn Express, which are the 4 newest and "nicest" hotels in Denton. They are all limited service hotels and cater to a wholly different crowd than an Embassy, Hilton, Marriott or the like would cater to. $140 is certainly higher than what is being charged in Denton today, but I'm not sure where you get the information you get that this number is higher than what Gaylord or any of the downtown hotels get. Lets look at the area in Richardson around Telecom Corridor, where the Hyatt, Doubletree, Hilton Garden Inn, Springhill Suites and the Renaissance (which is attached to the convention center there) have daily rates of between $139-$299. Hell, even the ancient Holiday Inn in Richardson has a web special rate of $129. I choose this area because it is most like what I think Denton would be with this hotel and the development I would anticipate it would create. ...in fact, the Renaissance and the convention center had virtually no development around it other than Nortel when it was built. ...AND the business climate in the old Telecom Corridor is not 1/3 what it was when Nortel, Ericsson and the tech companies in the area were flying high. I don't think $140 for the hotel connected to the center is out of line at all. Or Grapevine, where the hotels in that area range from $100 - $219, most over $150, including the Comfort Suites, Hampton Inn, Residence Inn etc. The full service hotels range from $189-$219 in the general area. Interestingly, the Airport Hyatt and embassy is the highest, Gaylord is $199. Even the best western and la quinta in the area are over $100 per night. I excluded Great Wolf as it is a destination of its own, has a water park and as such is closer to $250 per night. I also excluded the Grand Hyatt at DFW who's average rate is $259, but is certainly a property folks attending meetings or events in Grapevine would consider. Regarding the use of a property that isn't close to the airport, Richardson is always busy, we just did a small convention center in Manhattan Kansas of all places which is BOOMING, one of our customers who has their own 100K Sq Foot meeting/convention facility (Hotel Intercontinential Dallas) is always busy. While I agree that ONE of the factors that will make someone pick a location is proximity to a major airport, but it certainly isn't the only or even sometimes one of the drivers in a decision. FWIW, Hyatt Regency Downtown has an average rate of $169 per night currently is all but gutted due to a 50 million dollar renovation they are going through. Development spawns development. This hotel and convention center could do GREAT THINGS for Denton, UNT and the I-35/Ave D & C intersections and really change the face of that part of Denton. Frankly, I think it is short sighted to oppose the development. It is this short sightedness in Denton Politics that has gotten us to the point where we have NO full service hotel in the entire city. Of course the new properties are opposed to competition and the unknown. ...it doesn't mean they are right.

As someone in the hotel business, I have to admit he makes some good points. What is being largely ignored however is that the current state of hotels in Denton sucks. Most properties in Denton are old and run down and thus nobody wants to stay there. That being said, it wouldn't take much development of the surrounding area to turn the proposed hotel and the I35 Split a real destination. Comparing an Embassy w/ a small convention facility to the Gaylord is apples and oranges...

What?

ugh, ABC news, moveon.org, a large portion of the blogosphere... ...just making the point that there are nuts all over on all sides. ...lets not paint all conservatives (or liberals) with a broad brush because of some really off the mark remarks by a few. On topic enough for you?

I DON'T CARE WHO THE F$^K HE VOTED FOR! There are crazy assholes on both sides of the spectrum. Why do we always want to jump and paint everyone with such a broad brush? Here's what I care about. Why the hell did he do this and how do we help the victims and their families though this and to get justice? ...all the rest of this commentary is irrelevant and distasteful, regardless of what side it is coming from.

Limbaugh says something, and thus the entire right wing is guilty of being paranoid? LOL! I suppose Limbaugh is also responsible for this massacre? I'll remember this when someone on MSNBC says the next hateful thing (probably only have to wait until tonight) and I'll paint every liberal with that brush. Seem fair?

Unfortunately, it has already turned political with Piers Morgan and Mayor Bloomberg calling for major gun restrictions, and details about how many gun stores were within 10 miles of this guy's apartment, Facebook blaming Limbaugh and Talk Radio with no evidence of this guys politics, etc. ...However, the President gave a very sincere and well placed statement and cancelled campaign events for the day, as has Gov. Romney. I think they both handled it with class, and I'm proud of our President today when he said "NO POLITICS" thanked the crowed and headed back to AF1 to return to Washington.

Federal Employee?

I'm sure it was clear to everyone that my point is "by issuing the death penalty the current players are the ones who will get most screwed over". ...I understand the victims in Sandusky's crime, and have the utmost sympathy for them - but the damage has been done to them, and I question the wisdom of doing damage to guys who are innocent of any crime in the name of revenge or justice. Justice was done when Sandusky was sent to jail to rot. Justice will be done as these victims each get their pound of flesh (which they all deserve) out of Penn State in the Civil court system.

I really DO see both sides of it, but the guys who will get screwed over the most are the current players. I think that sort of sucks. Either decision is a loser really, which is I guess the point I was making.

You know, I'd like to see blood as much as the next guy, but what about the young men who are currently part of that program, have potential NFL opportunities or are getting an education based on their skills as a ball player? Do we pull the rug out from underneath the good coaches and innocent young men who are part of the program now to satisfy some political version of Justice? How does this improve the situation of the young men who Sandusky abused? I'd hate to see a bunch of players get punished for the sins grown men who damn well should have known better committed in the past.

Really sad. I grew up watching the Andy Griffith show and Gomer Pyle on channel 21 when I was a kid. REALLY sorry to see him pass.

This type of response drives me ballistic. "clean air" and "global warming" are two very different things. ...and the idea that those of us who question global warming or man's role in it should it actually exist, want dirty air to breathe is such a loser, such an attempt to distract from the actual issue and demonize it cheapens your argument. I certainly don't want dirty air. ...but the fact of the matter is that we have cleaner air today than we did 30 or 20 years ago, yet we consume more and more energy. Water Vapor and Carbon Dioxide aren't "dirty" or pollutants per se, yet are by far the biggest contributors to so-called "greenhouse gasses" in our atmosphere. I'm all for alternative types of energy which, if proven to be more efficient, cleaner and cheaper will be desired by the free market without the Government confiscating our wealth and enriching people who are developing technologies which often either don't work or can't compete. I'm all for clean air and prudent energy policy and incentives for energy companies to find new forms of power (short of funding their research or supplementing the cost of their products that the market won't support - see the Chevy Volt). I'm against policy that will artificially inflate energy costs and an EPA who has the power to implement regulation and policy without the authorization of congress.

Good point... Tolerance should be universal if you're demanding it. ...that having been said, there is no excuse for this behavior. Classless behavior by classless people. ...I also, however, don't put this on the Whitehouse. ...if we're gonna hang every person who may visit the Whitehouse and then act like a dip-sh!t around the then sitting President, we'd probably need to line 'em all up. the WH immediately had harsh words for these folks, and that's what (and all) I'd expect of the President in this case.

Good verdict. The folks involved in cover up and the university to the extent that cover ups happened as an active effort of any faculty should all face agressive civil suits. Sandusky will rot in Jail. Good riddance.

Intellectual dishonesty isn't a lie, but rather using the same logic to draw separate conclusions based on the politics or personal presence on each case, not based on the facts. Someone who is calling you intellectually dishonest isn't calling you a liar. ...but I digress. The flaw in your argument that I think led him to cite you as having been intellectually dishonest should be pretty clear. In the Sandusky case, the victims are all still alive. There are multiple victims and witnesses all telling the same story. There has also been no evidence of the media modifying any materials they have been presented by either the prosecution, defense or law enforcement to help them bolster a narrative that they plucked from thin air. None of this is the case in the Zimmerman trial. As more and more undoctored evidence comes out on Zimmerman, the more and more the original narrative that this white guy killed this black kid simply because he was black seems to be less and less likely. ...but as more and more information pours out of the Sandusky trial and more and more witnesses and victims (now including his own son) come out, the more creepy and apparently guilty Sandusky looks.

Don't know... the tape almost sounds like Chevy Chase doing a bit or something. I hope he's ok.

Something we can really agree on!