TexasCHLforum.com

[quote="RoyGBiv"

Honestly, I was INCREDIBLY disappointed in this debate. "Let's see who's the most Conservative" does nothing but reinforce to those who might vote Democrat that they are looking at 4 candidates who represent everything the Democrats warn them about. Of course they more or less agree on social issues, so, how about we debate about things more important to centrist and left leaning voters where we have a winning argument against the Democrats... Not one single question on economics.. What a shameful missed opportunity. Way, way, WAAAAAAY too much religion. All 4 are on the same page, why the big shovels? Was the moderator trying to alienate centrist voters and the candidates all too happy to oblige? I blame this also on the fact it was KERA reporters and other leftist asking the questions. Goes back to my original complaint about Republicans allowing Democrats to frame our debates.


Patrick... About the only moment he impressed me was in his closing statement where he talked about needing to stop installing Democrats as Chair of so many committees. That was a big score for me... otherwise, I don't think I'd let the man in my house. There's something i don't trust about him. That whole line of questioning about his bankruptcy... he was totally unprepared and gave some terrible responses to what should have been a very easy question. I too see Patrick as a little slimy, but that whole line of questioning was out of line. The reporter kept trying to insist he should payback one creditor from his bankruptcy 25 years ago. I believe paying a creditor outside of the court proceedings and not paying others is bankruptcy fraud.

paperchunker wrote:I too see Patrick as a little slimy, but that whole line of questioning was out of line. The reporter kept trying to insist he should payback one creditor from his bankruptcy 25 years ago. I believe paying a creditor outside of the court proceedings and not paying others is bankruptcy fraud.

Or how about a simple grown-up answer.?

"The party to which you are referring entered into this investment fully knowing the risks. I worked in good faith to try and avoid the bankruptcy, but like many small (and large) businesses during the oil bust, we were unable to weather the downturn and were left with no other choice. Had our efforts been successful, our investors would have shared proportionally in that success. There are MANY reasons why American bankruptcy law allows a bankruptcy procedure to seal off existing debts permanently. It is not simply a matter of etiquette or moral code. If you are not familiar with the full reasoning behind bankruptcy law, I suggest you do some research before intimating that my behavior and that of literally thousands of others who were similarly impacted by the oil bust, is something less than moral."

RoyGBiv wrote:

paperchunker wrote:I too see Patrick as a little slimy, but that whole line of questioning was out of line. The reporter kept trying to insist he should payback one creditor from his bankruptcy 25 years ago. I believe paying a creditor outside of the court proceedings and not paying others is bankruptcy fraud.

Or how about a simple grown-up answer.?

"The party to which you are referring entered into this investment fully knowing the risks. I worked in good faith to try and avoid the bankruptcy, but like many small (and large) businesses during the oil bust, we were unable to weather the downturn and were left with no other choice. Had our efforts been successful, our investors would have shared proportionally in that success. There are MANY reasons why American bankruptcy law allows a bankruptcy procedure to seal off existing debts permanently. It is not simply a matter of etiquette or moral code. If you are not familiar with the full reasoning behind bankruptcy law, I suggest you do some research before intimating that my behavior and that of literally thousands of others who were similarly impacted by the oil bust, is something less than moral."

That too!