Politics : Lets stir the pot :P

[BloodShot]

Its that time of year

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlTGkZq5NV8&feature=related


Maybe we can survive 1 page of discussion before spiralling down in flames

[rue]

George Washington - Political elections won before President: 0

Abraham Lincoln - Four terms in the Illinois state Senate.  Lost bid for U.S. Congress.  Elected President 2 years later.

Teddy Roosevelt - Elected Governor of New York 1898.  Elected President 3 years later.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt - Vice presidential nominee 1920, loses.  Struck by paralysis.  Governor of New York in 1929.  Elected President in 1932.

John Fitzgerald Kennedy - Elected mayor of Boston 1946.  Elected to U.S. senate 1952.  Elected President 1960.

Ronald Reagan - Governor of California 1967.  President 1976. 

Barrack Obama - Elected to State Senate 1997.  U.S. Senate 2004.  Democratic Party Presidential Nominee 2008. 

Some pretty good company I'd say.

[Zeradul]

Well, clearly the pick is a political hail mary for the McCain campaign.  If that isn't obvious to everyone, you're fooling yourselves.

---------

But I will say that comparing Mrs Palin to George Washington and many of those politicians is just silly.

Also, DD, Washington WAS elected by the Continental Congress as Commander in Chief in 1775, before being elected as President, 14 years later.

A few brief bullet points from Washington's resume at the time....

* District Adjutant General in the Virginia militia at age 20
* Brigadier General at age 26
* Major General of the Continental Army at age 43
* Elected Commander in Chief at age 43
* Commanded the US Military, racked up dozens of victories against a far better trained, paid, and equipped army, and secured victory over the British in the American Revolution.
* After securing victory, he disbanded the army and stepped down as Commander in Chief, 6 years before being elected President.
* Was influential in securing ratification votes for the US CONSTITUTION from all 13 states.
* Elected President UNANIMOUSLY.

-------

Quick Palin Update:

* Degree in Journalism from Idaho
* Worked as a Sports Reporter in Alaska
* Elected Mayor of a town of 6,000, a city which is the 6th largest city in Alaska
* Elected Governor of Alaska with 8% victory margin

-----

But yea..............  Washington, Palin.....  Palin, Washington.... clearly a toss up!

[Ruckus]

I'm curious....

 Why is the republican party now the party of "Change" ?  Or as the McCain camps says "Real change".

Have they been doing something wrong all this time ?

[rue]

Well, clearly the pick is a political hail mary for the McCain campaign.  If that isn't obvious to everyone, you're fooling yourselves.

---------

But I will say that comparing Mrs Palin to George Washington and many of those politicians is just silly.

Also, DD, Washington WAS elected by the Continental Congress as Commander in Chief in 1775, before being elected as President, 14 years later.

A few brief bullet points from Washington's resume at the time....

* District Adjutant General in the Virginia militia at age 20
* Brigadier General at age 26
* Major General of the Continental Army at age 43
* Elected Commander in Chief at age 43
* Commanded the US Military, racked up dozens of victories against a far better trained, paid, and equipped army, and secured victory over the British in the American Revolution.
* After securing victory, he disbanded the army and stepped down as Commander in Chief, 6 years before being elected President.
* Was influential in securing ratification votes for the US CONSTITUTION from all 13 states.
* Elected President UNANIMOUSLY.

-------

Quick Palin Update:

* Degree in Journalism from Idaho
* Worked as a Sports Reporter in Alaska
* Elected Mayor of a town of 6,000, a city which is the 6th largest city in Alaska
* Elected Governor of Alaska with 8% victory margin

-----

But yea..............  Washington, Palin.....  Palin, Washington.... clearly a toss up!

The point you missed while dropping into the second person to let me know that I'm fooling myself is that a lengthy time in Washington has variable ability to predict a candidate's ability to lead. Also please note I used Presidents rather than VPs because their names would be more recognizable.  FDR for example was the Democratic Vice Presidential nominee in 1920 after his highest office at the time was Assistant Secretary of the Navy.  There are numerous other examples of Vice Presidential nominees not having lengthy experience in much of anything.  Senator Obama, for example, was teased for the 2004 VP nominee before Kerry brought on Edwards (many believe because Edwards' southern accent would help win West Virginia and the Carolinas.) 

The only thing silly about this argument is not giving credence to the effect the GOP's "Hail Mary" has had on the race.  On September 1st Gallup had Senator Obama up 8 points.  After Palin's introduction and the RNC Gallup has Senator McCain up 4. 

[Stinger]

Ok then, this got me a few "You're an asshole" letters when I blogged it, but I'll still go ahead and repeat it, because I still think it true.

Obama only got the nod because he's black.

OK then, now for the logical follow-up. To paraphrase what I said last time, I am many things, many of them bad, but "racist" isn't among them. In fact, even though I was a McCain supporter in 2004 (Where he was running as a pro-choice "Fuck the republicans" independent), he's now selling out about 80% of his own personal beliefs along the party lines. Plus, if you take a look at his speeches before he became "the" candidate, you'll notice that he was always gripping something with whatever hand he wasn't gesturing along with his speaking. Be it on a pen, or on his lapel, he was always gripping for dear life.

Micheal J. Fox was doing that for a few years before it came out he had Parkinson's...

Ever read McCain biography? The man kicks ass. He's a fiscal republican (Anyone who isn't a "fiscal" republican, all other considerations aside, probably doesn't know shit about money), but he's always been downright liberal about most other things. Or at the very least, he was polite enough to lie and PRETEND that he didn't give a fuck about half of the republican machine's support-killing policies (Prayer is key, abortion is murder, gays marrying would bring about the end of the world) which he is now repeating as if they were his own greatest hits.

If John McCain was running as who John McCain really is, I'd vote McCain. In half a second. But he's not, he's reading off a teleprompter that's connected directly to a port running from the back of Karl Rove's head.

Before I go much further, let's take a minute to point out that all the presidential candidates named in this thread thusfar were deeply, fatally flawed men (Because all men, women too, are deeply and fatally flawed), so it doesn't ever make a lot of sense to me to compare candidates way back in the past... Especially since we can prove that most of our knowledge of these men was spin-doctored in revisionist history, and that we don't really know shit about the current candidates that isn't being spun real-time in a dozen different ways.

The only comparisons that need to be drawn in a situation like this are between the people in the race. Everything else is mental masturbation.

OK... I said that Obama won because he's black, and I do believe it. That said, if I do suddenly get overwhelmed with the illusion that my vote matters enough to make me find the poling place, I'm going to vote for Obama. But first I'm going to explain why Obama wasn't a great choice.

Obama is inexperienced. And go ahead and make the retarded "So was *insert supposed great president here*" argument if you'd like, but that doesn't change the fact that we're in a time of true global tension, and we need the person at the top to have some clue as the what the fuck he's doing. Now I genuinely believe that Obama will do a fine job as president, simply because the president is only one man who has a surprisingly small amount of power in comparison to the power they always claim they will wield when elected. Frankly, up until George Bush Jr. was elected, you could have made a real good argument that the president was remarkably useless in the grand scheme of things because checks and balances kept them from doing anything that resembled a real "change". The president really can't do much of shit unless he can convince the other branches to go along with it. Seems a war with the brown people is the kind of thing he can push through now (Who knew?), but for the most part, you could elect a libertarian to office tomorrow and then suddenly learn that the office doesn't really give one man enough power to change the country into what his parties ideal is.

This is true regardless of whether or not we get a republican or a democrat; Things are still going to move as they were going to in the first place. If it appears that the country is more of one and less of the other afterward based purely on who won, then that's either placebo, or all the losers being quietly dejected while all the winners whoop it up like braying jackasses. And no, that wasn't a thinly veiled prediction. This election is such a cluster fuck that, at this point, anyone who says they know who's going to win is lying to themselves.

Obama I think would make a great president in 4 years. Seriously. He has some good ideas, but with almost no idea how to implement them. The democrats put up a black man and a woman this year, and that was so un-subtle it's depressing. I'm an equalist. I think it completely retarded to judge a human being based on anything other than who they are as a human being. And I genuinely believe that the democrats did that intentionally (Yes, reverse racism is racism, and affirmative action hurts black people and women. But that's a discussion for later), to try to take what should have been a black and white issue (No pun intended) of "Look how bad they fucked it up",  and inject it with additional layers of social arguments.

Obama's VP was amazing his first night on the mic, by the way. I make it a point not to believe anything any politician says, but nothing impresses me more than a person who knows how to say it.

All that "Obama bashing" aside, like I said, if I'm going to go vote then I'm going to go vote for Obama. He may not be hella experienced, but I do believe he genuinely has his heart in the right place, and that he is a truly competent man, so he'll do fine. If there's one positive thing to be said about George Bush, it's that he's a real easy act to follow. And I came to this decision to abandon the bandwagon-jumping hypocrite McCain before his electing Palin, which was about 10 times less subtle than anything the democrats did with their selections, as highlighted by her coming out at their convention the first night to "I am woman, hear me roar."

And yeah, she's unqualified. The biggest asset McCain had in his muckraking corner was that Obama wasn't qualified, and they were wielding that fact like a finely honed sword. Then he brings in someone even less qualified because she has breasts, and says "The democrats snubbed a woman! Well, I'm not!" and out came this extremely attractive woman, made up to look like a librarian so as not to spook the conservatives, with less experience than his competition, whom he never let hear the end of it.

When a person's self-proclaimed greatest political contribution is being one of the first people to tell the government that building a bridge to bypass them evil canadians is a stupid fucking idea, then you know her resume needs a lot of filler.

Eh, I could go on a while. And I may. But I have a phone meeting at 11:30 and I have to get ready. Toodles for now.

[-Spectre-]

One loved drugs.

One can't lift his arms over his heads.


What is there to discuss ?

[Iniquitous]

One loved drugs.

One can't lift his arms over his heads.


What is there to discuss ?

Whoa. Where's the candidate with multiple heads? I'm voting for him!

[Zeradul]

The only thing silly about this argument is not giving credence to the effect the GOP's "Hail Mary" has had on the race.  On September 1st Gallup had Senator Obama up 8 points.  After Palin's introduction and the RNC Gallup has Senator McCain up 4.

Well the Palin / Washington comparison IS silly...   Matt Damon wasn't just saying she is politically inexperience, she's just inexperienced in general.  Political experience never was supposed to be a requirement for government office, but LIFE experience is HUGE.

But you are right, Hail Mary's can and do work once in a while.  Its acknowledging that the choice of Palin wasn't because she is most qualified, or because she has something to offer, but because she happened to be the most charismatic young, woman, with the least baggage, (or the "right" baggage?) that made her the pick as McCain's running mate before even meeting him.

Clearly she appeals to a demographic who likely either wouldn't vote, or vote differently if she wasn't on the ballot.  And that is what Matt Damon was saying.  Given McCain's advanced age, there is a very real chance that he could pass away in office, leaving Palin in charge, someone who we agree was not chosen for her qualifications.

[Ruckus]

Clearly she appeals to a demographic who likely either wouldn't vote, or vote differently if she wasn't on the ballot.  And that is what Matt Damon was saying.  Given McCain's advanced age, there is a very real chance that he could pass away in office, leaving Palin in charge, someone who we agree was not chosen for her qualifications.

That in itself is very real and very scary ... all political affiliations aside.

[kai]

I'm curious....

 Why is the republican party now the party of "Change" ?  Or as the McCain camps says "Real change".

Have they been doing something wrong all this time ?

Because the Republican base ideals haven't been met by the congress in the last eight years. There has not been a reduction of government. There has not been a reduction of spending. There has not been a reduction in aborted babies. As big a fan as I am of President Bush, I agree with McCain on almost every one of his positions despite my animosity for his "toeing the line" between parties.

Palin supports all these things that have been lacking for eight years. She is our answer to the good looks, youth, charisma, and ideals of Senator Obama. It's hard to feel good about voting for the old white man. Even though his ideals are great he looks like the opposite of change. She may be lacking in experience (like Obama), but she makes us feel good about our ticket by not only speaking for the base but also by making our ticket a glass ceiling breaker as well.

[Stinger]

She's a vagina on a stick. With a 17 year old unwed pregnant daughter. And "No idea what a VP does."

That's not something to feel good about. This isn't an inspiring story of a woman over-coming oppression, it's (Ironically enough) an awkward abortion of a political power play. And the fact that it's kind of working is a real bad sign for our country.

You shouldn't elect someone just because their genitals are new and exciting. I'm all about electing a woman to a position of power... But it would have to be a woman who's up there because she's qualified for the job. Had Hilary won, I definitely wouldn't have been voting this year for just that reason.

When McCain first announced that he was putting up said vagina on a stick because she's a big + in the minds of the conservative right, I honestly though it was going to be the biggest mistake he could possibly make... And it isn't... And how the fuck do 52% of the polls see it differently?

The people who are now saying Palin is a breathe of fresh air are the same people who were saying Obama was too inexperienced to even stand at the podium...

[rue]

But you are right, Hail Mary's can and do work once in a while.  Its acknowledging that the choice of Palin wasn't because she is most qualified, or because she has something to offer, but because she happened to be the most charismatic young, woman, with the least baggage, (or the "right" baggage?) that made her the pick as McCain's running mate before even meeting him.

Clearly she appeals to a demographic who likely either wouldn't vote, or vote differently if she wasn't on the ballot.  And that is what Matt Damon was saying.  Given McCain's advanced age, there is a very real chance that he could pass away in office, leaving Palin in charge, someone who we agree was not chosen for her qualifications.

How dare you disparage her on the grounds that she's young and a woman.  You're fitting people into boxes that you can easily manage, as per usual.  Congratulations on saying the same thing Stinger is in...*gasp* less words. 

And you read the wikipedia article incorrectly.

"Palin had been under consideration since a private meeting with McCain in a February National Governors Association meeting; although this was the first time the two had met, Palin made a favorable impression on McCain."

[Stinger]

He's not "disparaging" her because he's a woman. Neither am I, if you're convinced we're both saying the same thing. And "how dare you" go after people for verbosity, and "how dare you" use the phrase "how dare you" like you're better than us. It's very disparaging.

He's actually giving other people shit for what you're giving him shit for; Putting her in a tiny, bite-sized box. Who she is isn't what matters. She's there because she's a woman. Which is sexist. We're arguing the exact same point from opposite sides.

[Zeradul]

Ruck: Exactly.  That was Matt Damon's point.

I wasn't disparaging her at all, much less because she's a young woman.  I was pointing out that she was chosen for no other reason than because she fit the political goals (read: ploy for votes) that the McCain campaign decided fit their best chance to win.  Now, lets not kid ourselves, choices for VP are made all the time that campaigns feel give them the best chance to win.  In this case it is quite absurd of a choice, given that she only has 1.6 years in state (or higher) government (granted even that experience is questionable being nearly the least populous state), and now she had a 33% chance of being president in the next four years if McCain wins.  If pointing out that she has no significant experience is disparaging, then I guess I'm guilty, but I'm just stating a fact.  And to compare 1.6 years in state government with Obama's 10 years is silly in my book.  Sorry, but being Mayor of a tiny rural town just is not comparable to State or Federal government.

Also, CNN reported the two had never met shortly after she was announced as McCain's running mate.  If it was a private meeting, then maybe CNN didn't know about it, or maybe the McCain campaign looked back and found a day that McCain and Palin were physically in the same building and then claimed there was a secret meeting, either way, the point is that she certainly wasn't picked because they had some personal history, which leaves only the purely political reasons.

Remember, Alaska produced Senator Ted Stevens who got up and promoted Internet policy with so little grasp of the concept as to describe it as a "series of tubes" and "not a big truck", also claiming that his email often took more than a WEEK to arrive because the "tubes are clogged".

Because the Republican base ideals haven't been met by the congress in the last eight years. There has not been a reduction of government. There has not been a reduction of spending.

Kai, I hate to say it, but these "Republican" ideals have not been a part of the Republican party for 50 years.

The Republican Party that shared those ideals has ceased to exist.  The Republicans now (lets call them "Neo-Cons" have become "Big Government Militarists", who aren't interested in reducing costs at all, and who would rather occupy foreign nations to secure out dated fuel sources, and pass it off to the American people by scaring everyone to think that there is a real threat posed by "terrorism" that somehow wasn't posed at every moment before 9/11 as well as after.  Terrorism has always existed, and will always exist, but by blowing this minuscule threat out of the water the Neo-Cons have been able to justify and find support from a populace they've convinced a threat exists.  A 9-11 attack WAS and IS so ridiculously easy to prevent, that it boggles my mind that in response to this 100% preventable "attack" that we've created the TSA, AND the Department of Homeland security.  Two worthless agencies created by these big government "Republicans" that could have been avoided with partitions between the cockpit and passengers.

Also, look at the "stimulus checks" that the Republicans just handed out in May.  They BORROWED CASH from the Chinese (increasing the debt), and gave nationwide handouts to anyone who paid any taxes?  What?  If universal welfare coming from the national debt isn't Big Government I don't know what is.

So Kai, let me ask you this.  What evidence do you see of any Republican attempting to spend money wisely, and/or an example of wasteful spending limited by the Republicans.  I propose that the ideals you believe in have been completely abandoned by what used to be your party.

[Ruckus]

Look I can't hold back  sorry

GW doomed several companies his daddy handed to him prior to becoming governor, then president. Now, since his administration took office, we are faced with a deficit unrivaled by any past administration and bailouts that will cost taxpayers even more hundreds of billions of dollars. Not to mention wars that are decades from finished. HELL, it if wasn't for congress giving the major telecoms immunity he would have been responsible for their demise as well. Since it was his law breaking spying orders. (If they needed immunity they must have broken the law so don't even argue that point)

  Can we even remotely attempt to think another republican administration is good for this country ?

Bear-stearns, Fanny and Freddy and now Lehman ?  And a deficit my grandchildren will be paying for WITHOUT the current  bailouts.


 On a side note : The really really sad part about the bailout situation is the fact that in every case the CEO's and top Execs are walking away with tens of millions of dollars.     

         Shouldn't they be lynched ?!!!??!!!  Whatever happened to the captain going down with the ship ?  Ohhh thats right, accountability seems to be a word that has 'jumped ship' decades ago. 

Fuck another republican ever being in office .... I just hope this country can recover from the last 8 horrifying years.

edit: Millions not billions

[Zeradul]

On a side note : The really really sad part about the bailout situation is the fact that in every case the CEO's and top Execs are walking away with tens of billions of dollars.     

Shouldn't they be lynched ?!!!??!!!  Whatever happened to the captain going down with the ship ?  Ohhh thats right, accountability seems to be a word that has 'jumped ship' decades ago. 

Exactly.  I'm not sure what is wrong with our system that allows corporate corruption to exist.  This may sound ruthless, but any exec who had any role in the corrupt decision at Enron (or any company which failed via corruption) needs to be jailed for life, AND every penny they earned above some meager salary they're worth (something like 40K/year) should be ruthlessly taken back from them.  All their investments, pensions, 401K's, their property, their family's possessions, their homes, everything they bought with corrupt STOLEN money MUST be taken back, because anything less is a slap on the wrist that won't discourage fraud in the future.

And good for not "holding back".  All viewpoints need to be voiced!

[Blade]

I guess the only thing we can do is look at the bright side...

Reagan and Bush Senior's administrations got us a mile high in debt, and Clinton eventually all but erased that.

Perhaps within 15-20 years, we'll have those numbers back into a manageable state. It all starts with Obama.

[Zeradul]

and Clinton eventually all but erased that.

No!  That graph shows all INCREASES to the national debt !!!  Its just that one year Clinton only added 18 Billion.  The rest of his years he was averaging 225 Billion FURTHER into debt.

That graph essentially shows the derivative of the debt.  The yearly rate the debt increased.

[Blade]

Yow!

Well, hey... same idea. Limiting debt is also a positive step.

[chew]

All I will say is I am completely regretful for voting GW into office.  I will NEVER vote another Republican into office again and I don't like Obama either so fuck voting...kthx.

One thing that REALLY fucks with my nerves is how this country allows our Economy to go to shit and does it without thinking twice.  What I mean by this is we have watched some of the largest companies in America to be sold overseas.

The list just blows my mind : http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/lou.dobbs.tonight/popups/exporting.america/content.html

What happens when all the largest corporations are gone??!!!  I mean look at all the companies in America being run by foreigners here at home!!!  What does that do for us???  JACK SHIT!!!

Take this PRIME example:  Anheuser-Busch.  An American ICON on the brink of final transaction.  The Government KNOWS clearly the affect that will have on us and how bad it will damage St Louis local economy.  NOT to mention the lost jobs.  Sure, its said that employees won't lose their jobs.  Well, look at the Anheuser Theme Parks.  They are going to be sold off and there has been things said that the only park that would be considered for immediate buyout is probably Six Flags taking SeaWorld Orlando for obvious reasons(guaranteed $$$ year round).  All the jobs for the other theme parks would be lost.  American Government time and time again fails to put a stop to this and they wonder why our economy fails.  ALLOWING companies to sell off to overseas workers for less money.  That is NO excuse.  You do business in America, it stays in America, thats my modo.  I am sick and tired of watching our country fall to pieces over simple things that the government has the power to stop, but WONT.

Look at the Economy that was under Clinton...one of the most stable economies in modern American history.  Then comes GW and Daddy Bush with their butt buddy oil tycoons.  Politics make me sick and I know I will get flamed saying I have the American duty to vote blah blah, but after making the huge mistake of voting the ass that is in office now for the past 8 years, im ashamed for ever voting. 

[Iniquitous]

One thing that REALLY fucks with my nerves is how this country allows our Economy to go to shit and does it without thinking twice.  What I mean by this is we have watched some of the largest companies in America to be sold overseas.

The list just blows my mind : http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/lou.dobbs.tonight/popups/exporting.america/content.html

What happens when all the largest corporations are gone??!!!  I mean look at all the companies in America being run by foreigners here at home!!!  What does that do for us???  JACK SHIT!!!

Take this PRIME example:  Anheuser-Busch.  An American ICON on the brink of final transaction.  The Government KNOWS clearly the affect that will have on us and how bad it will damage St Louis local economy.  NOT to mention the lost jobs.  Sure, its said that employees won't lose their jobs.  Well, look at the Anheuser Theme Parks.  They are going to be sold off and there has been things said that the only park that would be considered for immediate buyout is probably Six Flags taking SeaWorld Orlando for obvious reasons(guaranteed $$$ year round).  All the jobs for the other theme parks would be lost.  American Government time and time again fails to put a stop to this and they wonder why our economy fails.  ALLOWING companies to sell off to overseas workers for less money.  That is NO excuse.  You do business in America, it stays in America, thats my modo.  I am sick and tired of watching our country fall to pieces over simple things that the government has the power to stop, but WONT.

So, wait, are you suggesting we cut off from the world entirely and eliminate all international trade? Or is it just that foreign companies aren't allowed to engage in business in the USA?

Not trolling, just looking for a little bit of clarification. Where do you draw the line?

Also, I think you're conflating two separate rants. The link you provided shows a list of US companies that are outsourcing jobs--not formerly US companies that are now owned by foreign entities.

And with regard to Anheuser-Busch, InBev isn't going to just fire all the theme park workers and let the parks rot. They might sell the parks but if no one bids I sincerely doubt they'll just shut them. They generate revenue for the company--they'll probably keep them until they can find a buyer. Finding a new owner isn't always a bad thing. They might, you know, try to improve the company, expand operations, grow revenues, etc. Shocking idea, that--businesses wanting to make more money.

[Stinger]

Eh... I'm happy you turned anti-GW, buddy, but if the government were to do something like, say, stop an American-owned business from selling to a foreign country, that would be WAY un-American.

Jobs are good. I hear what you're saying, this could very well fuck up a bunch of peoples lives in the short term, maybe long term if some of those people don't have what it takes to up and find new ones. But free-trade and global capitalism is the most American concept ever. A global system of capitalism growing stronger by the day is very American. In fact, our business practices being bought up by other countries is GOOD for America, because it shows that other countries respect what we've accomplished, and want it for themselves.

Busch for example will use the money they got from the buyout and start yet another company here in America. May not be brewing, but I assure you they're not just going to sit on the cash. They got to where they are by knowing how to turn money into businesses. They now turned their businesses into more money. Of course they're going to turn that money into more businesses.

America is free trade. If I had a business that I wanted to sell, and some government official told me I'm not allowed because the buyer is from another country, that would be racist, and fucking stupid, and as much as I do truly love America, that there would be more than enough to make me jump ship and get citizenship elsewhere.

It's not a countries responsibility to keep it's people employed. Un-pretty, but true. That's between employees and employers. Whenever a politician doesn't understand that, that graph shown earlier in this thread gets more and more inflated, while doing nothing but hurting our stability in the long run.

[chew]

Iniq,

InBev has already made the impression it plans to sell off non-brewing assets, aka theme parks.  The theme park industry aside from Disney are not in the greatest position right now with money.  I live just outside of Orlando, and the news of the losses that Busch parks and Universal have taken over the past couple years have made a real impact.  Its so bad that its forcing them to give deals that are so good it really makes you wonder how they survive sometimes.  Its a domino effect.  The Economy is falling apart due to reduced consumer spending... why?  Because of gas prices and lost wages, jobs, etc.  Its a vicious cycle.  Lost jobs means little or no money to spend for vacations, hence the reduction in the number of travelers which has become worse and worse.  They have said that InBevs intentions are to have the parks sold by mid next year.  Well, if the biggest theme park operators see these struggles with other theme parks and even themselves having struggles, what makes you think they want to add more parks that really MIGHT just break them even.  Theme park operators are in for the investments too, not losses.  It would be cheaper for InBEV to shut the parks down and focus on the breweries all together if they are not sold by a reasonable deadline.

This leads to more lost jobs and an economical impact.  Look at our national deficit...that explains it all right there.  Sure free trade is the American way, OK.  But when America itself can't sustain at least a balanced economy, then something needs to be done or we are in for some REAL tought times ahead.  This is the shit politicians don't give a shit about because they make a VERY comfortable, VERY rediculous salaries, so they don't have a clue what middle-lower class Americans have to do in order to survive.  Its fucking sad.

[Iniquitous]

InBev has already made the impression it plans to sell off non-brewing assets, aka theme parks.  The theme park industry aside from Disney are not in the greatest position right now with money.  I live just outside of Orlando, and the news of the losses that Busch parks and Universal have taken over the past couple years have made a real impact.  Its so bad that its forcing them to give deals that are so good it really makes you wonder how they survive sometimes.  Its a domino effect.  The Economy is falling apart due to reduced consumer spending... why?  Because of gas prices and lost wages, jobs, etc.  Its a vicious cycle.  Lost jobs means little or no money to spend for vacations, hence the reduction in the number of travelers which has become worse and worse.  They have said that InBevs intentions are to have the parks sold by mid next year.  Well, if the biggest theme park operators see these struggles with other theme parks and even themselves having struggles, what makes you think they want to add more parks that really MIGHT just break them even.  Theme park operators are in for the investments too, not losses.  It would be cheaper for InBEV to shut the parks down and focus on the breweries all together if they are not sold by a reasonable deadline.

True, but a large part about whether a company will do a transaction is based on the price. If InBev really wants to get rid of them, it would rather sell at a low price than just shut them down. I'm willing to bet that someone--theme park operator or otherwise (possibly private equity)--would be willing to buy at the right price.

This leads to more lost jobs and an economical impact.  Look at our national deficit...that explains it all right there.  Sure free trade is the American way, OK.  But when America itself can't sustain at least a balanced economy, then something needs to be done or we are in for some REAL tought times ahead.  This is the shit politicians don't give a shit about because they make a VERY comfortable, VERY rediculous salaries, so they don't have a clue what middle-lower class Americans have to do in order to survive.  Its fucking sad.

National deficit has to do with government receipts vs. government expenditure. The reason we have a large national debt isn't because we're buying too much stuff from China, it's because the government spends more than it collects in taxes.

If you're going to rage about the economy, that's fine. It's in a crappy state right now and it's largely due to excessive borrowing/lending. InBev's acquisition of Anheuser-Busch  has little to do with that, though.

To stoke the fire a bit: if foreign companies shouldn't be allowed to purchase US companies / invest in the US, should US companies be allowed to invest abroad? Are you generally anti-free trade, or just in this specific case? Why?

[Stinger]

This leads to more lost jobs and an economical impact.  Look at our national deficit...that explains it all right there.  Sure free trade is the American way, OK.  But when America itself can't sustain at least a balanced economy, then something needs to be done or we are in for some REAL tought times ahead.  This is the shit politicians don't give a shit about because they make a VERY comfortable, VERY rediculous salaries, so they don't have a clue what middle-lower class Americans have to do in order to survive.  Its fucking sad.

I agree with you that it's sad how many people in this country are poor and hardly making ends meet. It is a tough time, everything getting more and more expensive. And losing jobs, like I said, yeah that sucks. But the government can't keep bailing companies out. We need to start spending less money, not more money, or we're eventually going to reach the point of "Fucked" where the people we owe money to aren't going to give us any more.

It sucks that a lot of people are going to lose their jobs, but those people need to lose their jobs. The company they worked for can't support them because the economy can't support the company. Business is rough shit. You keep going until you're out of money. If you can arrange for more money without signing up for too much risk, you do it. But if you can't, you're done. The idea that the government should step in to save even one business like this is just a really bad idea, because who draws the line?

The sad truth is that if you're lower-middle class, that's largely based on the kind of work you do. To get out of the class, you need to get a different type of work. No matter how good you are at a skill, no matter how long you've been doing it, if the amount of money you make is based on the numbers of hours you work, then you're never going to go above middle-class. Transcend the "time = dollars" formula, and then you can make it out. This is just as true in a recession as it is any other time, and this is why most people in the lower and middle class can't get a comfortable hold on their own destinies. It is truly fucked. Believe me, I know, I'm always in the process of fighting upwards... But really now, it is what it is.

If you don't like that you don't have control of your future, then you need to try to take control of your own future. If you're putting your well-being in the hands of other people, then you're going to be scared frequently. Maybe this big company is happy feeding you today, and maybe they'll be happy feeding you tomorrow, but what if they're not? It is an unfortunate position to be in. But the responsibility to get out of it shouldn't fall on your government, it should always fall on the individual.

Business networking isn't just for grandpa and the good old boys anymore. Everyone needs to learn. That's the only way you're going to start seeing everyone prospering simultaneously as opposed to a massive imbalance. I said it in another thread, but it's worth repeating; It's a testament to how the government wants to keep its people that we teach PE in our public schools, but not finances. The fact that the mass majority of America thinks a bank account with a 5% interest rate is a good investment is truly one of the biggest reasons for "disproportionate wealth."

[BloodShot]

Everything's fine and dandy here until YOU'RE the one that lost your job.  I doubt as you're going home in a stupor that you're going to explain to your wife "I needed to lose my job for my country."

The thing is, its not the people who have cushy 90k+ sales jobs who are losing their livelihoods, its your 30k a year mill / factory worker.  Also, no one likes it when their shit hits the fan, and if anyone of us here loses our jobs, there's not going to be any deluded form of grudging acceptance.  You're going to be pissed, you're going to be angry, and you're going to be wondering why the fuck it happened.  Care to know who's responsible for explaining why?

[Stinger]

Bloodshot! I've missed you, buddy. AIM me sometime, or email.

I said nothing about losing your job for your country. What I'm saying is that your country has nothing to do with your job. Unless you're a civil servant, your employment isn't the direct responsibility of government. The government wants you to be employed, because if you're not, that's bad for everyone. But bail-outs aren't a solution. Never have been, never will be, and the longer it takes everyone to figure that out, the worse off the whole country is going to be.

[briman]

I won't be losing my job! You guys should look into the company I work for, JOBS FOR ALL!

I am just throwing this out there for everyone here. I have read in several places in this thread where you are "not going to vote" for whatever reason. And I don't care if you support this war or not, but I am here right now defending your right to make that vote. And you are absolutly correct, you have the RIGHT not to vote. But if you really want change, why would you NOT vote? You would rather let someone else make the choice for you? That seems a little silly. You sit and bitch and moan, and don't do anything for the "change" that you claim you want.

Oh, and if you want to bitch about gas prices, thank your democratic congress for not letting us drill for oil. But following basic rules of supply and demand, we find a cheaper source (ie drill our own) and stop buying so much from OPEC, OPEC will have to drop prices for us to continue buying HUGE quanities from them. I know that us drilling our own will not make us self-sufficent, but every barrel of crude we drill ourseves, in 1 less then we buy from them. We will always depend on forigen oil, but a little less dependence is always a good thing eh?

Oh well, agree or disagree with the war, I am in the middle of it and I am going back to it now! CYA

[-Spectre-]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TiQCJXpbKg