Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Kenny Coyote" data-source="post: 181649" data-attributes="member: 102">Bobby takes a lot of flack for the George Hicks incident, but think of what would have likely happened had Bobby done nothing, just let it slide. Then Hicks keeps voting to ensure JR keeps his variance. JR can supply all his gas stations and add who knows how many extra ones. The variance had been called JR&#039;s big edge over Bobby. With the amount of extra profit JR would have made by being able to keep his variance, it&#039;s very likely that even having the Canadian deal come through on time wouldn&#039;t have been enough. Jr wins the contest. Does anyone think JR would have done what Bobby did and share the company after winning it? So then we have a situation where JR is running Ewing Oil with complete autonomy. Imagine the harmful things JR could have done without Bobby there to temper that element of him.I have to think if you weigh the bad JR could have done with complete autonomy, it would have far outweighed the bad of Bobby blackmailing Hicks. So you might look at it as Bobby was just being proactive and doing what would ultimately cause the least amount of overall harm done by Ewing Oil. I also think Bobby wanted his father&#039;s company to keep a reputation of integrity and he couldn&#039;t trust JR with complete autonomy to keep his father&#039;s company&#039;s image in good standing.Bobby was doing what was necessary to accomplish those goals, unless of course you can think of a way he could have accomplished what he did by blackmailing Hicks in a different way that didn&#039;t involve anything dirty such as blackmail or bribery. Here we are, over 36 years after that happened and although I have debated that exact subject before, I&#039;ve never had a single person come up with a better way of achieving what he did - getting the board to vote honestly on the variance. Not one. Thirty six years is a long time to have to think up a better solution for Bobby. The majority outright pretended they didn&#039;t see the question. Would it hurt their egos so badly to say, &quot;All this time I&#039;ve criticized Bobby over blackmailing Hicks and sided with Pam, I&#039;ve never been able to come up with a better solution for Bobby to achieve the same thing by ethical means&quot;?&nbsp; I&#039;ll admit it right now. I can&#039;t think of a way Bobby could have handled that ethically while still achieving the result of getting the board to vote impartially on JR&#039;s variance. That didn&#039;t hurt a bit.I&#039;ve never ran from a question in a debate. I&#039;ve said &quot;I don&#039;t know&quot; and I&#039;ve sometimes given answers that I no longer agree with today, but I&#039;ve never ran from a question. That would defeat the whole point of the debate - to test yourself and your beliefs against opposition and find out what happens. It&#039;s a growing process. Im a big believer in personal growth but a lot of people don&#039;t want to do it because in the process of personal growth we&#039;re going to make mistakes and out in the real world where we&#039;re doing things with real consequences, those mistakes are often painful. Everybody wants the benefits of personal growth but not everybody is willing to pay the price required to achieve it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Kenny Coyote, post: 181649, member: 102"] Bobby takes a lot of flack for the George Hicks incident, but think of what would have likely happened had Bobby done nothing, just let it slide. Then Hicks keeps voting to ensure JR keeps his variance. JR can supply all his gas stations and add who knows how many extra ones. The variance had been called JR's big edge over Bobby. With the amount of extra profit JR would have made by being able to keep his variance, it's very likely that even having the Canadian deal come through on time wouldn't have been enough. Jr wins the contest. Does anyone think JR would have done what Bobby did and share the company after winning it? So then we have a situation where JR is running Ewing Oil with complete autonomy. Imagine the harmful things JR could have done without Bobby there to temper that element of him. I have to think if you weigh the bad JR could have done with complete autonomy, it would have far outweighed the bad of Bobby blackmailing Hicks. So you might look at it as Bobby was just being proactive and doing what would ultimately cause the least amount of overall harm done by Ewing Oil. I also think Bobby wanted his father's company to keep a reputation of integrity and he couldn't trust JR with complete autonomy to keep his father's company's image in good standing. Bobby was doing what was necessary to accomplish those goals, unless of course you can think of a way he could have accomplished what he did by blackmailing Hicks in a different way that didn't involve anything dirty such as blackmail or bribery. Here we are, [B]over 36 years [/B]after that happened and although I have debated that exact subject before, I've never had a single person come up with a better way of achieving what he did - getting the board to vote honestly on the variance. Not one. Thirty six years is a long time to have to think up a better solution for Bobby. The majority outright pretended they didn't see the question. Would it hurt their egos so badly to say, "All this time I've criticized Bobby over blackmailing Hicks and sided with Pam, I've never been able to come up with a better solution for Bobby to achieve the same thing by ethical means"? I'll admit it right now. I can't think of a way Bobby could have handled that ethically while still achieving the result of getting the board to vote impartially on JR's variance. That didn't hurt a bit. I've never ran from a question in a debate. I've said "I don't know" and I've sometimes given answers that I no longer agree with today, but I've never ran from a question. That would defeat the whole point of the debate - to test yourself and your beliefs against opposition and find out what happens. It's a growing process. Im a big believer in personal growth but a lot of people don't want to do it because in the process of personal growth we're going to make mistakes and out in the real world where we're doing things with real consequences, those mistakes are often painful. Everybody wants the benefits of personal growth but not everybody is willing to pay the price required to achieve it. [/QUOTE]

Verification

Who played JR Ewing?