George Soros? Owner of the Nats? Some Repubs say no...capitalism surrenders.

View Poll Results: What say you? yea or nea...the more anger the better you know how I like to be angry

Voters
10. You may not vote on this poll
  • No...libbies are bed wetting cry babies and there is no crying in baseball

    1 10.00%
  • Repubs have finally lost it.

    4 40.00%
  • They are confusing Soros with Shiavo in there unecessary intervention in this matter.

    3 30.00%
  • If the dems "owned" congress they could pick the owner of the nats.

    2 20.00%
Results 1 to 20 of 20
  1. #1
    Opus was just napping
    Reputation: thatsmybush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    20,651

    George Soros? Owner of the Nats? Some Repubs say no...capitalism surrenders.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...062801511.html

    So what happened to capitalism? Repubs trying to block a 400+ million dollar sale because they don't like the potential spender? What say the flock...should Soros not be allowed to own a baseball team (as part owner) because the party in power says...NO?
    In the time of battle you don't rise to the occasion you resort to the level of your conditioning...

  2. #2
    Genitive Declensioner
    Reputation: svend's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    12,146
    Quote Originally Posted by thatsmybush
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...062801511.html

    So what happened to capitalism? Repubs trying to block a 400+ million dollar sale because they don't like the potential spender? What say the flock...should Soros not be allowed to own a baseball team (as part owner) because the party in power says...NO?
    They only like capitalism when it lines their pockets, and how they will be howling when the Chinese start to buy the rest of the world.
    Big Fan of the Callipygian Way
    "The collards tore my wife's stomach up and with her being pregnant and constipated it made for a smelly ride to the cabin in north Georgia." -gut
    "The term "steeping" brings to mind "tea-bagging" and, on far too many levels, I'm simply not comfortable with that." -antonio_b
    "People think maggots are a bad thing, but I'll bet they ate most of the feces he has been sitting in for the last two years. Go maggots! -Mohair

  3. #3
    Big is relative
    Reputation: bigbill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    11,887
    I have no problem with Soros owning a team as long as he attends the Marge Schott school of public relations and player management. Do you think that GW will still get to throw out the first pitch?

  4. #4
    Adorable Furry Hombre
    Reputation: Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    29,445
    Quote Originally Posted by bigbill
    Do you think that GW will still get to throw out the first pitch?
    Nah-unless Soros has a nice sense of irony-he can't rule a country; so let him throw a baseba (he can do less harm).

    Chirp Chirp Chirp.
    "Refreshingly Unconcerned With The Vulgar Exigencies Of Veracity "

  5. #5
    gazing from the shadows
    Reputation: QuiQuaeQuod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    27,009
    Naked power play. Play to the base by attacking the bogeyman while paying off a contributor. It's a twofer.

    From the WAPO sports page:

    " You can't help wondering what's behind the outrageous attack on Soros, who isn't even a major partner in the bid for the Nats. (Local entrepreneur Jon Ledecky is the real bidder.) Isn't it strange that rival bidder Fred Malek, the head of the Washington Baseball club, just happens to be a very big GOP fundraiser? And isn't it strange that, in a telephone interview, Davis went out of his way to praise Malek's bid? And isn't it strange that these attacks on Soros from Republicans came on the very day that Ledecky and his partners were being interviewed by MLB?"

    Davis is a republican in congress. Suprised, anyone?
    .
    Stout beers under trees, please.

  6. #6
    Back from the dead
    Reputation: mohair_chair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    20,626
    Nice to see that the Republican party still stands for less government intrusion.

  7. #7

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    928
    Quote Originally Posted by thatsmybush
    Repubs trying to block a 400+ million dollar sale because they don't like the potential spender?
    They're probably also going to block the $18B buyout of Unocal by CNOOC for political reasons. Welcome to my world...

    And the Marge Schott point is flat out wrong - she was forced to sell the Reds because of her eccentricities.

  8. #8
    Opus was just napping
    Reputation: thatsmybush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    20,651
    Quote Originally Posted by tjeanloz
    They're probably also going to block the $18B buyout of Unocal by CNOOC for political reasons. Welcome to my world...

    And the Marge Schott point is flat out wrong - she was forced to sell the Reds because of her eccentricities.
    What political world is that? Do you think it is wise for us to sell off a rare commodity of a private company and allow it to be purchased by the Chinese Government? CNOOC I believe is "privately owned" up to seventy percent by the chinese government. I for one would have great pause about having one of our companies "nationalized" by a foreign government....hmmm?
    In the time of battle you don't rise to the occasion you resort to the level of your conditioning...

  9. #9

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    114
    Quote Originally Posted by thatsmybush
    What political world is that? Do you think it is wise for us to sell off a rare commodity of a private company and allow it to be purchased by the Chinese Government? CNOOC I believe is "privately owned" up to seventy percent by the chinese government. I for one would have great pause about having one of our companies "nationalized" by a foreign government....hmmm?
    Apparently the majority of Unocal's assets are in Asia. Also, CNOOC and the Chinese Govt. has stated that they will divest the North American portion of the company and keep the Asian parts.

    Besides, are any of the big oil companies REALLY American companies anymore? Don't they usually get referred to as "multinationals"?

  10. #10
    Opus was just napping
    Reputation: thatsmybush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    20,651
    Quote Originally Posted by wsexson
    Apparently the majority of Unocal's assets are in Asia. Also, CNOOC and the Chinese Govt. has stated that they will divest the North American portion of the company and keep the Asian parts.

    Besides, are any of the big oil companies REALLY American companies anymore? Don't they usually get referred to as "multinationals"?
    Because I am ready to trust the Chinese government...someone refresh my memory...when did we start to trust communist dictatorships exactly...
    I just for the life of me cannot recall?

    /Oh I forgot...yea they make our shoes.
    In the time of battle you don't rise to the occasion you resort to the level of your conditioning...

  11. #11
    Call me a Fred
    Reputation: MikeBiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    16,998
    Quote Originally Posted by thatsmybush
    Because I am ready to trust the Chinese government...someone refresh my memory...when did we start to trust communist dictatorships exactly...
    I just for the life of me cannot recall?

    /Oh I forgot...yea they make our shoes.
    How many communist dictatorships are remaining? Is it more than the number of right-wing dictatorships? Are monarchies dictatorships?
    Mike

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    You may starch my jumper
    Hang it upside your wall
    You know by that, baby
    I need my ashes hauled.

    Sleepy John Estes

    H

  12. #12

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    928
    Quote Originally Posted by thatsmybush
    What political world is that? Do you think it is wise for us to sell off a rare commodity of a private company and allow it to be purchased by the Chinese Government? CNOOC I believe is "privately owned" up to seventy percent by the chinese government. I for one would have great pause about having one of our companies "nationalized" by a foreign government....hmmm?
    The world where Government regulation steps in and prevents private owners from selling what they have to whomever they want. CNOOC is a public company, and is probably the most transparent of all Chinese public companies (which, admittedly, isn't saying much).

    But as far as Unocal is concerned, why should we care? What could China do with Unocal to damage the United States? Turn off the valves and stop pumping oil (and natural gas, which is actually Unocal's most desirable asset)? One thing that CNOOC really wants is Unocal's deep-drilling expertise and technology, which could open up large oil and gas reserves in China - which would be good for everybody. Why should the transaction be blocked?

  13. #13
    Opus was just napping
    Reputation: thatsmybush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    20,651
    Quote Originally Posted by tjeanloz
    The world where Government regulation steps in and prevents private owners from selling what they have to whomever they want. CNOOC is a public company, and is probably the most transparent of all Chinese public companies (which, admittedly, isn't saying much).

    But as far as Unocal is concerned, why should we care? What could China do with Unocal to damage the United States? Turn off the valves and stop pumping oil (and natural gas, which is actually Unocal's most desirable asset)? One thing that CNOOC really wants is Unocal's deep-drilling expertise and technology, which could open up large oil and gas reserves in China - which would be good for everybody. Why should the transaction be blocked?
    Because this is not solely an economic issue (ghastly thought!) This is a geopolitical and balance of power issue. The chinese government OWNS (70% according to a report from Lou Dobbs yesterday) the company...it is BACKING the sale of the company (by using currency that refuse to allow to float on the world market, artificially elevating the value of their offer)...and will essentially nationalize the company enterprises.

    China is a country that I am not willing to TRUST. Rep. Joe Barton wrote a letter to President Bush saying CNOOC's bid for Unocal presented a "clear threat" to U.S. national security and should be blocked.

    Would could China do? I don't even like to think about that...since I know most Americans are not prepared for what China might do.
    In the time of battle you don't rise to the occasion you resort to the level of your conditioning...

  14. #14

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    928
    Quote Originally Posted by thatsmybush
    Because this is not solely an economic issue (ghastly thought!) This is a geopolitical and balance of power issue. The chinese government OWNS (70% according to a report from Lou Dobbs yesterday) the company...it is BACKING the sale of the company (by using currency that refuse to allow to float on the world market, artificially elevating the value of their offer)...and will essentially nationalize the company enterprises.

    China is a country that I am not willing to TRUST. Rep. Joe Barton wrote a letter to President Bush saying CNOOC's bid for Unocal presented a "clear threat" to U.S. national security and should be blocked.

    Would could China do? I don't even like to think about that...since I know most Americans are not prepared for what China might do.
    It's true that the Chinese government owns 100% of a company that owns 70% of CNOOC. The best part is that they're going to pay for this acquisition (indirectly) by funding the U.S. treasury.

    But what do we care if the Chinese government owns Unocal? There's a lot of oil being pumped by nationalized oil companies a lot less friendly than China - Nigeria, for example. Even Iraq, in its current state, is producing more oil than Unocal. Unocal is a pimple on the ass of "big oil". The big Unocal asset is natural gas, which is mostly located in Asia, and is really fricken hard to get from there to here - China is better suited to take advantage of those resources.

    Joe Barton, a Congressman from Chevron (the competing bidder) country, one might expect that he would want the deal to go to his constituents. This is actually a really good example of Government being in the pocket of big business, but we'd rather turn a blind eye on this one and pretend it's the "good fight".

  15. #15

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    270

    MLB Franchises...

    MLB franchises while being privately owned operate under an agreement where the other owners have a right of refusal/approval on new owners. The other owners under the agreement that they agreeded to when buying a team legally had a right to force Marge out. Its not a government issue.

  16. #16
    Opus was just napping
    Reputation: thatsmybush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    20,651
    Quote Originally Posted by tjeanloz
    It's true that the Chinese government owns 100% of a company that owns 70% of CNOOC. The best part is that they're going to pay for this acquisition (indirectly) by funding the U.S. treasury.

    But what do we care if the Chinese government owns Unocal? There's a lot of oil being pumped by nationalized oil companies a lot less friendly than China - Nigeria, for example. Even Iraq, in its current state, is producing more oil than Unocal. Unocal is a pimple on the ass of "big oil". The big Unocal asset is natural gas, which is mostly located in Asia, and is really fricken hard to get from there to here - China is better suited to take advantage of those resources.

    Joe Barton, a Congressman from Chevron (the competing bidder) country, one might expect that he would want the deal to go to his constituents. This is actually a really good example of Government being in the pocket of big business, but we'd rather turn a blind eye on this one and pretend it's the "good fight".
    You are going to have a hard time...knowing what I believe to know about Chinese intentions long term...to convince me that this is not a geopolitical, balance of power issue. Unfettered capitalism is just as destructive as unfettered anything else and must be weighted against our own national interests...which I believe they do not. Giving up more and more of our control of a rare commodity that currently has us fighting wars in order to get more of is not the way to insure our future in my opinion. The Chinese government is a known problem...one that I would not be willing to hand over access to a resource that both parties want and need desperately.

    Joe Barton may have a conflict of interest, I do not deny that...but I think he is correct...this is a matter of national security...and because of that, the United States government has jurisdiction in this matter. (Making this a poor example...when comparing it to George Soros and the Nats to be sure.)
    In the time of battle you don't rise to the occasion you resort to the level of your conditioning...

  17. #17

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    928
    Quote Originally Posted by thatsmybush
    You are going to have a hard time...knowing what I believe to know about Chinese intentions long term...to convince me that this is not a geopolitical, balance of power issue. Unfettered capitalism is just as destructive as unfettered anything else and must be weighted against our own national interests...which I believe they do not. Giving up more and more of our control of a rare commodity that currently has us fighting wars in order to get more of is not the way to insure our future in my opinion. The Chinese government is a known problem...one that I would not be willing to hand over access to a resource that both parties want and need desperately.

    Joe Barton may have a conflict of interest, I do not deny that...but I think he is correct...this is a matter of national security...and because of that, the United States government has jurisdiction in this matter. (Making this a poor example...when comparing it to George Soros and the Nats to be sure.)
    I'm just not sure how owning a small amount (really, Unocal's reserves are tiny, in the scope) of a global commodity really impacts the global balance of power. It gives the Chinese access to drilling technologies that will only help us (by reducing China's dependence on the rest of the World's oil).

    I will argue that it is a national security mistake NOT to sell it to the Chinese.

  18. #18

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    114
    Quote Originally Posted by thatsmybush
    You are going to have a hard time...knowing what I believe to know about Chinese intentions long term...to convince me that this is not a geopolitical, balance of power issue. Unfettered capitalism is just as destructive as unfettered anything else and must be weighted against our own national interests...which I believe they do not. Giving up more and more of our control of a rare commodity that currently has us fighting wars in order to get more of is not the way to insure our future in my opinion. The Chinese government is a known problem...one that I would not be willing to hand over access to a resource that both parties want and need desperately.

    Joe Barton may have a conflict of interest, I do not deny that...but I think he is correct...this is a matter of national security...and because of that, the United States government has jurisdiction in this matter. (Making this a poor example...when comparing it to George Soros and the Nats to be sure.)
    It seems to me that if we block China from BUYING the means to extract and distribute fossil fuels then at some point China will come to the conclusion that they must acquire those means by much less pleasant tactics, military tactics. That doesn't sound beneficial for our "national security".

    Wouldn't our "national security" be better served by becoming the world leader in developing the ability to produce useful energy without pumping it or mining it out of the ground? I certainly hope that we get out of the business of fighting over some patch of sand or jungle on the other side of the planet to secure access to fossilized carbon.

  19. #19
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    507
    As mentioned in the Wash. Post, noone in Congress seemed to mind when Rupurt Murdoch bought the LA Dodgers a few years back. Are baseball teams only to be owned by conservatives?

  20. #20
    Opus was just napping
    Reputation: thatsmybush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    20,651
    Quote Originally Posted by wsexson
    It seems to me that if we block China from BUYING the means to extract and distribute fossil fuels then at some point China will come to the conclusion that they must acquire those means by much less pleasant tactics, military tactics. That doesn't sound beneficial for our "national security".

    Wouldn't our "national security" be better served by becoming the world leader in developing the ability to produce useful energy without pumping it or mining it out of the ground? I certainly hope that we get out of the business of fighting over some patch of sand or jungle on the other side of the planet to secure access to fossilized carbon.
    That certainly would be nice and its paints a pretty picture...but it does in no way conform to pragmatic foreign policy.

    I don't think China would take anything by force...not when we are giving them everything one piece at a time. Why pull the trigger yourself when your victim is just committing suicide.
    In the time of battle you don't rise to the occasion you resort to the level of your conditioning...

Similar Threads

  1. Meeting The Ghost (a story for y'all)
    By Gregory Taylor in forum General Cycling Discussion
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 08-29-2004, 06:35 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

THE SITE

ABOUT ROADBIKEREVIEW

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2020 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.