SMU, UD among Bush library finalists

Bergermeister · Post by **Bergermeister** » Fri Oct 14, 2005 3:15 pm

The other funny thing about the Whacko location (listed as a plus) was "Interstate access" Ha! Maybe 30 years ago. Maybe all those NAFTA truckers would enjoy a break at the GWB Bookmobile-on-the-Brazos. How 'bout an adjacent truck stop?

PK · Post by PK » Fri Oct 14, 2005 3:33 pm

Spoken like a true entrepreneur...you may be on to something here Bergermeister.

Stallion · Post by **Stallion** » Fri Oct 14, 2005 3:48 pm

after driving that Interstate about a hundred times I wonder if that really is a positive. That Interstate is so overcrowded with the growth in Central Texas that it has got to be one of the busiest and most dangerous around. Driving I 45 is a cakewalk compared to I 35. You can't afford to drive less than 80 in bumper to bumper traffic or you won't get back to the inside lane for about 15 miles.

jtstang · Post by **jtstang** » Fri Oct 14, 2005 4:25 pm

Stallion wrote:after driving that Interstate about a hundred times I wonder if that really is a positive. That Interstate is so overcrowded with the growth in Central Texas that it has got to be one of the busiest and most dangerous around. Driving I 45 is a cakewalk compared to I 35. You can't afford to drive less than 80 in bumper to bumper traffic or you won't get back to the inside lane for about 15 miles.

Not to mention they've been doing construction on that same stretch of 30 since the Eisenhower administration.

mrydel · Post by **mrydel** » Fri Oct 14, 2005 4:30 pm

Come drive the Arkansas Interstates. You will never complain again. It is about 20:1 big rig to car and they do so much damage to the roads it is either totally torn up or under construction.

friarwolf · Post by **friarwolf** » Fri Oct 14, 2005 4:52 pm

thanks, socal. i have my moments.

parking won't be an issue. there are plenty of solutions to parking that mimimize land requirements. university gardens is the spot.

now to the big question.........everyone knows that the Bushies can't stand to have the Clintonistas outdo them. since the slickster has built his high tech doublewide mobile home to house his library, what will W's look like?????

jtstang · Post by **jtstang** » Fri Oct 14, 2005 5:12 pm

A Georgian architecture ranch house, complete with indoor plumbing.

MrMustang1965 · Post by **MrMustang1965** » Fri Oct 14, 2005 5:44 pm

SoCal_Pony wrote:No offense MM65, but wasn't your 'word on the street' that we had lost the library to UT???

Going in, I thought UT and Arlington would be our biggest contenders...now they are both out of it...maybe it is a slam-dunk after all.

And Friarwolf...your description of UD is both hilarious and accurate...maybe that it why it is so funny

No offense taken, SoCal_Pony. I believe my post about UT was that they had a unique proposal on the table of dividing the library up between several sites around the state. I don't think I ever said they had it locked up.

smupony94 · Post by **smupony94** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 7:54 pm

I had to laugh when a prominent real estate broker in Houston told me last week that a wealthy Bush supporter was going to buy Astroworld (you can pick it up for just over $100 mil) and donate it for the Bush library.

SMU Football Blog · Post by **SMU Football Blog** » Tue Oct 25, 2005 8:17 am

MrMustang1965 wrote:
SoCal_Pony wrote:No offense MM65, but wasn't your 'word on the street' that we had lost the library to UT???

Going in, I thought UT and Arlington would be our biggest contenders...now they are both out of it...maybe it is a slam-dunk after all.

And Friarwolf...your description of UD is both hilarious and accurate...maybe that it why it is so funny
No offense taken, SoCal_Pony. I believe my post about UT was that they had a unique proposal on the table of dividing the library up between several sites around the state. I don't think I ever said they had it locked up.

From August:

I know in an earlier post about the library, I said that I had it on 'good authority' that the Teasips had the lead on getting it.

I can't find the original post, but I recall you saying UT had it in the bag.

MrMustang1965 · Post by **MrMustang1965** » Tue Oct 25, 2005 1:49 pm

SMU Football Blog wrote:
MrMustang1965 wrote:
SoCal_Pony wrote:No offense MM65, but wasn't your 'word on the street' that we had lost the library to UT???

Going in, I thought UT and Arlington would be our biggest contenders...now they are both out of it...maybe it is a slam-dunk after all.

And Friarwolf...your description of UD is both hilarious and accurate...maybe that it why it is so funny
No offense taken, SoCal_Pony. I believe my post about UT was that they had a unique proposal on the table of dividing the library up between several sites around the state. I don't think I ever said they had it locked up.

From August:
I know in an earlier post about the library, I said that I had it on 'good authority' that the Teasips had the lead on getting it.

I can't find the original post, but I recall you saying UT had it in the bag.

Blog: That's because no such post ever existed. I *never* said they (UT) had it 'in the bag'. If you can find where I said that (the thread), I will publicly apologize on this site.

SoCal_Pony · Post by **SoCal_Pony** » Tue Oct 25, 2005 2:25 pm

Well that brings up an interesting point...Webmasters....the search engine on your site isn't what it use to be...

and another small suggestion...when going back through prior pages it would be nice if you could go more than 1 page at a time...

I say all this because I also believe MM65 said we had lost but it would be too time-consuming to find the thread.

abezontar · Post by **abezontar** » Tue Oct 25, 2005 3:11 pm

So when is the final decision supposed to come down?

Otto · Post by **Otto** » Tue Oct 25, 2005 3:30 pm

Not soon enough.

mrydel · Post by **mrydel** » Tue Oct 25, 2005 3:33 pm

OK so here is the deal. We all say things on this board on occasion I am sure we wish we had thought about better or could take back or due to being misinformed.. I recall MM65 saying that UT had it in the bag or it was a done deal or something to that effect, and that he got the information form word "on the street". He also in a latter post said he was recanting his earlier statement. I do not know where the first one was but on page 2 of this forum under the heading Bush Library: Fox News Insider Reporting MM65 recants his earlier statement. So....some of us feel he said it, he says no but he recanted regardless and says he would recant if we could show him where he said it but we can not so he can not recant what we can not show that he said but he recanted anyway. Does that satisfy anyone or everyone. Now this is a post I wish I had never said.