RE: Dems: GOP rooting against America

RE: Dems: GOP rooting against America (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Politesub53 -> RE: Dems: GOP rooting against America (10/7/2009 12:36:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Criticisms of the expense of the entire entourage that went, or of his massive ego and state of denial in thinking he could actually influence things in Chicago's favor is certainly relevant tho. Still posting nonsense huh ? Blair and Chirac both went to the meeting to decide where the 2012 Olympics would be held. Blair pushed hard for three days for London, Chirac ( from what I have read ) didnt. Which city will stage the games, and it aint Paris. So to suggest a political leader cant have any influence on the outcome, is totally incorrect.

mnottertail -> RE: Dems: GOP rooting against America (10/7/2009 12:39:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead Gladstone and D'Israeli were both progressives in their day. Not to mention that I have it on good authority, neither of them played 'hide the Prince of Wales in Caernarvon' with one another, in the cloakroom, between votes. Ron

DomKen -> RE: Dems: GOP rooting against America (10/7/2009 1:16:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: Who is claiming they never had gone before. I know for a fact it was done for LA and Atlanta A sitting President traveled half way around the world for a 5 minute speech in the middle of an economic meltdown. I don't remember that, and couldn't find any reference. Please point me in the right direction. he cant because it didnt happen. Carter did not appear before the IOC for LAs bid, in fact LAs bid was uncontested and the only presentation made was Ueberroth presenting the details of the private financing arrangements to prove the viability of holding the games at all. I dont believe GHWB was involved in the 1990 presentations for 1996 either. Funny there is video of Bush I's appeals to the IOC for the Atlanta games.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Dems: GOP rooting against America (10/7/2009 2:44:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail his going to bid for the games, in the entire scheme of things is laughable or laudable as you wish, it is important that we focus frenetically on these far reaching and consequetial questions, instead of healthcare, infrastructure, peace, prosperity, rights, where our place in the globe will be (and where it should be) in light of the increasing strength of other nations, and our overall disappation, and other trivial concerns like that. Actually I have no problem with him going per se, and don't see the denial as "his failure". He has closer to ties to a city bidding than any former POTUS, and anyone who thinks that the time spent on AF1 couldnt be as productive as time in the Oval Office suffers from the same delusion that the left had when criticizing Bush's "vacations" in Crawford. Criticisms of the expense of the entire entourage that went, or of his massive ego and state of denial in thinking he could actually influence things in Chicago's favor is certainly relevant tho. Chicago Tribune WASHINGTON -- Will he stay or will he go? Some observers say two factors weigh heavily in favor of a road trip. One is recent history, since Britain's Tony Blair and Russia's Vladimir Putin were on hand for high-level persuasion when London and Sochi scored Olympic games in 2012 and 2014. The other factor is that VIPs are expected to lobby the IOC for Chicago's rivals. Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has made it clear he's in. King Juan Carlos of Spain will lead his country's delegation. And Japan stands to be represented by its royal family and new prime minister. But global uncertainties suggest the White House will wait to announce whether the sports-loving president plans to turn out. "I think he needs to do everything to go to the mat for having the United States be the host for the 2016 Olympic Games," said Ken Duberstein, who was chief of staff to President Ronald Reagan and once chaired an ethics committee for the U.S. Olympic Committee. But Obama needs to measure whether making the trip would increase the likelihood of victory, or be viewed by some at the IOC as "high-level intrusion," Duberstein said. One option is for Obama to appear by video, he said. The USOC has made it clear that it wants Obama to show up in the Danish capital. "We are hoping he could join us there to enhance the Chicago 2016 bid," USOC Chairman Larry Probst said. Patrick Ryan, CEO of Chicago 2016, was asked whether people would feel let down if Obama is a no-show, and said: "Everybody would be disappointed, because wouldn't it be thrilling to meet Barack Obama?" http://www.wirescan.com/my.info/view/n=342669/ntop=0 Things like this went a long way in the decision process. Whats your point? DK said that ALL heads of state attended pitches for Olympics decided in his lifetime. ALL didnt, and afaik no POTUS ever has, and most certainly not LA, one of the two he specifically named when NONE attended.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Dems: GOP rooting against America (10/7/2009 2:45:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: Who is claiming they never had gone before. I know for a fact it was done for LA and Atlanta A sitting President traveled half way around the world for a 5 minute speech in the middle of an economic meltdown. I don't remember that, and couldn't find any reference. Please point me in the right direction. he cant because it didnt happen. Carter did not appear before the IOC for LAs bid, in fact LAs bid was uncontested and the only presentation made was Ueberroth presenting the details of the private financing arrangements to prove the viability of holding the games at all. I dont believe GHWB was involved in the 1990 presentations for 1996 either. Funny there is video of Bush I's appeals to the IOC for the Atlanta games. Link? What about your claim for LA? And you can throw in the 2005 campaign for NY where GWB only sent a video. Even if youre right about Atlanta, which as I said I dont BELIEVE you are, theres still 2 in your lifetime where the POTUS didnt go, much less any other heads of state we could waste hours looking for.

DomKen -> RE: Dems: GOP rooting against America (10/7/2009 4:08:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: Who is claiming they never had gone before. I know for a fact it was done for LA and Atlanta A sitting President traveled half way around the world for a 5 minute speech in the middle of an economic meltdown. I don't remember that, and couldn't find any reference. Please point me in the right direction. he cant because it didnt happen. Carter did not appear before the IOC for LAs bid, in fact LAs bid was uncontested and the only presentation made was Ueberroth presenting the details of the private financing arrangements to prove the viability of holding the games at all. I dont believe GHWB was involved in the 1990 presentations for 1996 either. Funny there is video of Bush I's appeals to the IOC for the Atlanta games. Link? What about your claim for LA? And you can throw in the 2005 campaign for NY where GWB only sent a video. Even if youre right about Atlanta, which as I said I dont BELIEVE you are, theres still 2 in your lifetime where the POTUS didnt go, much less any other heads of state we could waste hours looking for. http://www.nytimes.com/1990/09/19/sports/atlanta-selected-over-athens-for-1996-olympics.html I will acknowledge he didn't go in person, I had been misinformed, but there is no doubt he was involved as were all previous Preisdents at least as far back as the 1980 Olympics.

tazzygirl -> RE: Dems: GOP rooting against America (10/7/2009 4:26:17 PM)
My point, willbe, is that there is MUCH behind the scenes going on that we, John and Jane Q Public, know nothing about. Late, high-powered lobbying can be important - as then-Prime Minister Tony Blair and his wife, Cherie, proved four years ago, when London campaigned successfully for the 2012 Olympics. Blair traveled to Singapore ahead of the vote and spent two days lobbying members, inviting them to his hotel suite for one-on-one meetings. Chicago tore a leaf from his playbook: Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett met with Blair last week to get tips on navigating the IOC voting process. But for the first time, there are no IOC executive board meetings in the days leading up to the vote. That means less opportunity for schmoozing. IOC votes can be unpredictable. Aside from the paramount questions of whether bidding cities' Olympic plans are technically and financially feasible, emotion, sentiment, geography, politics, self-interest and other factors all play roles. In Copenhagen, there's also the boldface-name factor, with Spain's King Juan Carlos and Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva already here and President Barack Obama jetting in for a few hours on Friday to bolster Chicago's presentation. Willi Kaltschmitt, an IOC member since 1988, said the VIP presence would reassure voters that bids are fully backed by their governments -but would be only one of many factors. Australian IOC member Kevan Gosper said after meeting with Mrs. Obama, however, that she and her husband "could have an influence on marginal votes." IOC members used to visit candidate cities themselves, but that was stopped because of concerns about bribery. Now they rely on IOC reports, presentations and lobbying to decide. "Since we're not allowed to visit the cities, it comes down to the very, very little details," Hoevertsz said. Ultimately, the choice may hinge on whether IOC members want to make a bold statement by sending the Olympics to South America for the first time or choose more familiar territory. The United States, Spain and Japan have all previously held the Summer Games. Chicago could also be seen as a safer financial bet in tough economic times. "One of the things that is very important to us now is the economic recession," said IOC member Nat Indrapana, adding that when cities made their cases to the IOC in June, "Chicago made a beautiful presentation." http://www.kristv.com/Global/story.asp?S=11230877&nav=menu192_4_9 How do we know there wasnt alot of meetings from the Presidents of the past? IOC would visit... Since the bribery scandal, they havent visited, instead waiting. Anyone got proof that no other President has met with the IOC before then? Since 1984, The Olympics have been a huge money draw, especially TV. With all the other VIPs in attendance, Bush stating how he was behind Chicago getting the bid, and the expectations of the IOC for him to attend... i dont see how he could not go.

rulemylife -> RE: Dems: GOP rooting against America (10/7/2009 7:01:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: You claimed Spring Hill was going to become a "ghost town", apparently not aware they had re-tooled for Chevy production. I'm trying hard not to make you look, at minimum, misinformed. I was really hoping you'd actually look up what's going on in Spring Hill. But no - like your support of the Administration - you are blind to reality. For 'Sping Hill' - THIS is reality: Eventually, GM decided to move production elsewhere. The last Saturn made in Tennessee rolled off the line in 2007. After retooling, GM started building the Chevrolet Traverse in Spring Hill, but that production is now on its way out too. In November, it will be moved to a plant in Michigan, leaving Spring Hill's plant idle. I'll be happy to accept your apology, and admission that you didn't know accurate information. Uhhhhh....................no again. Your point was Obama should have been trying to save Saturn and those poor folks in Spring Hill building them. Then you belatedly realized they were really building Chevys. The fact GM is closing the plant has absolutely nothing to do with your erroneous original point. But that was a nice try at saving face. quote: You want an example of 'disenfranchisement'? "Resident Joyce Avello puts the blame squarely on the federal government. It's an abomination what the government is doing to the automotive industry ... Get it out of the government's hands. They don't know how to do cars. They can hardly do the government ." IBID Well, if Joyce says it's true who am I to argue? quote: However at least one resident agrees with you and doesn't think it's the end of 'Spring Hill'; With Saturn gone and the local plant preparing to idle, at 94, G.W. Bowman said, "Of course, it's going to hurt, but it's not going to kill Spring Hill." IBID BTW - READING sources come in many flavors - this one is from CNN. (I don't watch CNN either.) Hmmmm........you don't watch Fox, you don't watch CNN, you have no idea who these Limbaugh and Beck guys are. Yet, you are telling me the quote is from CNN. That's a little odd, don't you think? quote: Now I don't run GM or have anywhere near the employees of the closing Saturn plant; however, were I the major investor in it, I'd be looking for alternatives to Penske. Even if I didn't give a damn about the people of Spring Hill I'd try to recoup my investment. However, I don't think this Administration considers tax money spent as investment. Maybe you should talk to who runs GM. (hint: his name is not Obama) quote: Now - lets move on... Sorry, I had to ignore the rest. My patience and attention span have limits. Is there something in the Conservatives Handbook that requires you guys to be so long-winded?

Mercnbeth -> RE: Dems: GOP rooting against America (10/8/2009 7:37:49 AM)
quote: Sorry, I had to ignore the rest. My patience and attention span have limits. Is there something in the Conservatives Handbook that requires you guys to be so long-winded? Back with your tail between your legs huh? quote: Your point was Obama should have been trying to save Saturn and those poor folks in Spring Hill building them. LOL! No - you don't get to change the facts. The plant IS closing - whatever its was making, will no longer be made. You represented "all is well!" - it's not. There will be nothing made there. Instead of seeing the 'Little Mermaid' he should have been trying to find a solution to one of the plants his bail out assured would keep jobs. He failed to do so. There is no other point. quote: you don't watch Fox, you don't watch CNN, you have no idea who these Limbaugh and Beck guys are. Yet, you are telling me the quote is from CNN. I read, whatever source is given in what I read is listed. Reading - you should try it. quote: Sorry, I had to ignore the rest. I understand - what other choice is there for you?

SpinnerofTales -> RE: Dems: GOP rooting against America (10/8/2009 9:20:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth LOL! No - you don't get to change the facts. The plant IS closing - whatever its was making, will no longer be made. You represented "all is well!" - it's not. There will be nothing made there. Instead of seeing the 'Little Mermaid' he should have been trying to find a solution to one of the plants his bail out assured would keep jobs. He failed to do so. There is no other point. Merc, I have to ask...and I ask it as a serious question to get a real answer: If Obama HAD put himself into the negotiations to keep Saturn afloat, and he had managed to do so, would you have said "He did a good job and was right in this issue." or would you have pointed to it as a proof that the auto industry had not only been bailed out but nationalized and taken a shot at it as a sign that we are becoming a socialist country?

Mercnbeth -> RE: Dems: GOP rooting against America (10/8/2009 9:47:02 AM)
quote: If Obama HAD put himself into the negotiations to keep Saturn afloat, and he had managed to do so, would you have said "He did a good job and was right in this issue." or would you have pointed to it as a proof that the auto industry had not only been bailed out but nationalized and taken a shot at it as a sign that we are becoming a socialist country It would have shown to me Obama's ability to follow through and focus on something. No evidence to date in his history that he can do so. The fact of nationalizing GM and Chrysler is a fact. The lack of insuring the tax money invested will generate a return, either in jobs or a viable company, also now seems to be a fact - they won't. Obama's direct action regarding GM and Chrysler should made it incumbent on him and the administration to make sure this didn't happen. Or if it did, all other possibilities were exhausted. Regarding your perspective that Obama had another 'no win' situation; it seems that's the case in most things attempted by this Administration. The pre-election concern regarding Obama's lack of organizational experience and planning is showing to be a huge problem. No experienced administrator would put themselves is no many 'no win' situations. Who is to blame? My position has always been pointed to waste. Whether speaking for 5 minutes in Copenhagen, or spending a few hundred million on delaying the ultimate failure of the Spring Hill plant. The bail out money is wasted when follow up fails to maintain the jobs it was alleged to be saving. I thought it was a waste when it was proposed, the results to date prove that to be correct. Maybe that response isn't direct enough to your question so I'll be more specific. It was a mistake to bail out GM and Chrysler. Prior to seeing the results it could be argued that was an 'opinion', now it is not. However, when good administrators make such a mistake, they put their best effort to working around it. Obama chose not to, compounding the mistake. Had he intervened that would have mitigated the damage done by the first mistake. The distinction between using his 'clout' in Copenhagen versus at the merger table is, any benefit derived by winning the Olympic bid for Chicago was 'blue sky'. 'Chicago Olympics' wasn't a campaign platform plank. There wasn't hundreds of millions already 'invested' in the survival of the Chicago Olympics. There was, and is, a big 'investment' in GM. Here's a "serious question to get a real answer" back at you. As a business man, where would you have spent that week?

SpinnerofTales -> RE: Dems: GOP rooting against America (10/8/2009 11:20:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth Here's a "serious question to get a real answer" back at you. As a business man, where would you have spent that week? Fair enough question. I don't think I would have gone to Copenhagen (although I am begining to think that the IOC was a convenient reason to make a trip Obama wanted for other reasons). On the other hand, I do not think that I would have gotten involved with the Saturn deal for a number of reasons. 1) The US government giving money to keep an industry going is very different than actually running the industry. Whether you think it will happen or not, the funds given GM and Chrysler were loans. Their intent was to keep those companies from going under at a time when such a failure would have been disasterous. For a number of reasons, I personally would stay reasonably far away from the idea of managing the company as I could. 2) The idea of the bailouts, whether you agree with them or not, is not to prevent the pain but to graduate it. There is going to be contraction, closings and general economic pain for quite some time. Even Keynesians agree that the government spending at such a time isn't meant to prevent that, but to keep that pain from becomming so great there is a systemic failure. While the plant closing is a bad thing for those involved, it is not at the moment a pain that will induce or help induce that systemic failure at this moment. 3) Again, while the closing of the plant, as well as the loss of the Saturn brand is sad, it may be necessary. One of the general areas of agreement among experts (of which I don't count myself as one), is that one of the problems with GM and Chrysler are too many brands and too many divisions. It would have been nice if Saturn could be sold, but if it couldn't then it couldn't. There is no way to cut down on brands and divisions without some pain going around. So, while you may disagree, if I were the president (and his agenda and duties are different than that of a businessman), I would not have gone to Copenhagan (unless I could hit the weed cafe's) but I also wouldn't have gone within a football field of the whole Saturn deal. How's that for a clear answer?

tazzygirl -> RE: Dems: GOP rooting against America (10/8/2009 11:30:10 AM)
quote: 3) Again, while the closing of the plant, as well as the loss of the Saturn brand is sad, it may be necessary. One of the general areas of agreement among experts (of which I don't count myself as one), is that one of the problems with GM and Chrysler are too many brands and too many divisions. It would have been nice if Saturn could be sold, but if it couldn't then it couldn't. There is no way to cut down on brands and divisions without some pain going around. So now we are advocating the inrevention of government in the free market? werent we saying government is too involved when we were discussing minimum wages?

Moonhead -> RE: Dems: GOP rooting against America (10/8/2009 11:41:36 AM)
Nobody objected to Government intervention in the free market when it involved Haliburton receiving uncontested bids for the reconstruction of Iraq, iirc. (At least, nobody worth speaking of, the lefties were all pissing blood about that, but who cares about liberal scum like that?) On a less snide note, doesn't the fact that the big three are only still around due to protectionist measures that have allowed them to avoid being driven out of business by foreign competitors who actually have a clue what they're doing government intervention as well?

tazzygirl -> RE: Dems: GOP rooting against America (10/8/2009 11:46:38 AM)
Im not a fan of them being bailed out. Pissed me off when the big three guys showed up, each in a private jet, to beg, hat in hand, for government money to bail out the companies they ran into the ground. Im also not happy about bailing out AIG and the rest. Big Brother should have let them all fail, took over their assets... and kept right on going. Instead, we gave them money so their execs could go to spas. But the attitude that government should rush in to "help" out Saturn while some on these boards gripped and whined about an increase in minimum wage, i feel, is hypocritical.

Moonhead -> RE: Dems: GOP rooting against America (10/8/2009 11:52:06 AM)
I'd go along with that, to be honest. I remember being outraged when I read about the RBS' former CEO's severance package. My feeling has always been that if a bank receives a handout from the Government to keep it afloat, then it should be nationalised immediately. I get the impression that's fighting talk around here, though, and I can definitely see why Obama wouldn't fancy making the Government responsible for the fast shrivelling three.

tazzygirl -> RE: Dems: GOP rooting against America (10/8/2009 12:39:09 PM)
Yeah, they can be fightin words. However, the outcome could have been a bit different. I always thought that if the government has taken over the three non-efficient companies, a strong one could have emerged... same with the banks and financial institutions. I wasnt for Bush to start it, i didnt agree with Obama to continue it. To me, its plain bad business.

tazzygirl -> RE: Dems: GOP rooting against America (10/8/2009 1:23:05 PM)
To return to the OP's subject. Here is an article about another time the right cheered a bad incident regarding one of the Presidents. http://www.lawsch.uga.edu/academics/profiles/dwilkes_more/jfk_24blownaway.html

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Dems: GOP rooting against America (10/8/2009 1:26:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead Nobody objected to Government intervention in the free market when it involved Haliburton receiving uncontested bids for the reconstruction of Iraq, iirc. (At least, nobody worth speaking of, the lefties were all pissing blood about that, but who cares about liberal scum like that?) On a less snide note, doesn't the fact that the big three are only still around due to protectionist measures that have allowed them to avoid being driven out of business by foreign competitors who actually have a clue what they're doing government intervention as well? Halliburon received more uncontested contracts under the Clinton administration than Bush's. There is a reason for uncontested contracts...only one company is capable of performing them. Clinton ushered that era in with the peace dividend and his destruction of competition in the defense industry.

mnottertail -> RE: Dems: GOP rooting against America (10/8/2009 1:30:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Halliburon received more uncontested contracts under the Clinton administration than Bush's. There is a reason for uncontested contracts...only one company is capable of performing them. Clinton ushered that era in with the peace dividend and his destruction of competition in the defense industry. I wouldn't cause you embarrassment if I solicited a cite here, would I? Ron

Page: << < prev 6 7 8 [9] 10 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125