Liberal Compassion?

[red states rule]

Former Senate Democrat Majority Leader George Mitchell, who is one of the top dogs at Disney, tells us all we need to know how libs look at the poor.

The Walt Disney Company is suing Anaheim, California over a city plan to build low-cost housing near Disneyland for low income people. George Mitchell's company has filed suite to stop the construction

I wonder if ABC will report this? (Disney owns ABC)

My, you have to love liberal love and compassion


Disney sues Anaheim over low-cost housing plan

ANAHEIM, Calif. (AP) — The Walt Disney Co. is suing the city of Anaheim over a controversial residential project that would add low-cost housing in the city's resort district.
Disney has long opposed the proposal to build 1,500 condominiums and apartments, including 225 units for lower income residents, near its amusement parks. The entertainment company says residents would be out of place in a district designed for tourists.

"This lawsuit speaks to how important we view this Anaheim resort area and that we make sure the vision sticks," said Disneyland spokesman Rob Doughty.

The Anaheim City Council is considering whether to reopen debate on the residential project after rejecting the proposal earlier this month with a split council vote.

The project's developer appealed and argued that Councilwoman Lucille Kring, who was told to abstain over of a possible conflict of interest because she planned to open a wine bar nearby, should have been allowed to vote.

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2007-02-27-disney-sues-anaheim-low-cost-housing_x.htm

 

[Gurdari]

Excellent show of just how 'liberal' democrats are. They are the pussy side of the business party. Republican-lite. I hope every paper reports this.

 

[gabosaurus]

Anyone who has lived in Anaheim (I lived there for 18 years, until I went to college) knows that Disney is the Anti-Christ. The Disney corporation believes Anaheim (and all of Orange County) should be a subsidiary of the Disney Empire.
Disney is by no means liberal. Of course, the Bush apologists would not know this, since they consider anyone who fails to worship Bush doctrine without question as "liberal."
You would have to live in Anaheim to understand what this is about.

 

[red states rule]

Anyone who has lived in Anaheim (I lived there for 18 years, until I went to college) knows that Disney is the Anti-Christ. The Disney corporation believes Anaheim (and all of Orange County) should be a subsidiary of the Disney Empire.
Disney is by no means liberal. Of course, the Bush apologists would not know this, since they consider anyone who fails to worship Bush doctrine without question as "liberal."
You would have to live in Anaheim to understand what this is about.

Sorry to bust your bubble, but former Sen George Mitchell (D) is Disney's corporate director. (He OK'd the suite) Disney also owns ABC News

They are very liberal, and so is Disney.

This is a perfect example of libs lecturing the people on how they should live their lives and how they should act - while doing the opposite themselfs

 

[Gurdari]

Sorry to bust your bubble, but former Sen George Mitchell (D) is Disney's corporate director. (He OK'd the suite) Disney also owns ABC News

They are very liberal, and so is Disney.

This is a perfect example of libs lecturing the people on how they should live their lives and how they should act - while doing the opposite themselfs

Such a rarity in politics and corporate America, because... oh, wait. Scratch that.

 

[glockmail]

Anyone who has lived in Anaheim (I lived there for 18 years, until I went to college) knows that Disney is the Anti-Christ. The Disney corporation believes Anaheim (and all of Orange County) should be a subsidiary of the Disney Empire.
Disney is by no means liberal. Of course, the Bush apologists would not know this, since they consider anyone who fails to worship Bush doctrine without question as "liberal."
You would have to live in Anaheim to understand what this is about.

Apparently one would have to live on the moon.

 

[T-Bor]

Give me one good reason why Disney should say "Sure, build all these low budget houses next to our High dollar tourist attraction. We dont mind poor people drinking 40's with brown bags around them bothering our customers"

You ever been to Atlantic City ? Its like a diamond surrounded by shit. Nice casinos surrounded by crap. Of course the crap was their first. But you get my point. I have no idea why you dont think Disney or any other prestigious place would oppose this.

What if you lived in a wealthy area and they decided to build low income houses right next to your mansion ? Thats right, the price of your place just went down big time. Next time think before you post stuff like this just so you can slam liberals.

 

[William Joyce]

Next time think before you post stuff like this just so you can slam liberals.

But the point's perfectly taken. Liberals spend their lives pointing an angry finger at those rich, arrogant businesspeople and how they don't "care about the poor." But stick the poor under their noses, and they react the same. Or worse. It's called hypocrisy.

Good post, rsr.

 

[red states rule]

Give me one good reason why Disney should say "Sure, build all these low budget houses next to our High dollar tourist attraction. We dont mind poor people drinking 40's with brown bags around them bothering our customers"

You ever been to Atlantic City ? Its like a diamond surrounded by shit. Nice casinos surrounded by crap. Of course the crap was their first. But you get my point. I have no idea why you dont think Disney or any other prestigious place would oppose this.

What if you lived in a wealthy area and they decided to build low income houses right next to your mansion ? Thats right, the price of your place just went down big time. Next time think before you post stuff like this just so you can slam liberals.

It is so typical of the left. They lecture everyone else how to live their lives, how they need to be more caring, and how they should give more of their money in taxes; all to help the poor

BUT when the libs have the chance to actually do something - forget about it -

 

[ScreamingEagle]

But the point's perfectly taken. Liberals spend their lives pointing an angry finger at those rich, arrogant businesspeople and how they don't "care about the poor." But stick the poor under their noses, and they react the same. Or worse. It's called hypocrisy.

Good post, rsr.

Yep, there are plenty of rich liberals in business. Of course their money comes first. Priorities, people. These guys are in it for the "greater good"...the greater good for themselves, that is. Poor people are just another means to an end...useful fodder with which to gain power through governmental control. Remember that in socialism the big businesses are basically controlled by the elite few running the government while their duped followers run around chirping how socialism is for the "greater good".

Liberal compassion my ass.

 

[Gurdari]

Give me one good reason why Disney should say "Sure, build all these low budget houses next to our High dollar tourist attraction. We dont mind poor people drinking 40's with brown bags around them bothering our customers"

What if you lived in a wealthy area and they decided to build low income houses right next to your mansion ? Thats right, the price of your place just went down big time. Next time think before you post stuff like this just so you can slam liberals.

Why is Disney involved in any decision about low-income housing? Nobody elected them to make planning decisions about homes.
If I lived in a wealthy area and the built low-income housing nearby, other than the juxtaposition making me feel extremely well-off by comparison, my property values are as important to those poor folk, as their worries about making rent are to me. Meaning, my feelings are irrelevant. Unless I'm the emperor of the land...

 

[Gurdari]

It is so typical of the left. They lecture everyone else how to live their lives, how they need to be more caring, and how they should give more of their money in taxes; all to help the poor

BUT when the libs have the chance to actually do something - forget about it -

Define 'libs' and define 'left'.
A true lefty-liberal would not act as you claim... I fear you somehow associate democrats or anyone included in mainstream discussions as 'leftist'.

And the lecture I'd give the 'rich' wouldn't be "PLEASE HELP THE POOR!!!"
it would be "Earn your money withhout fucking the poor up the ass"

What does that mean? Rich people should lose the fear of poor people making decisions that affect themselves. Meaning less lobbying, less input from only one small sector of the nation, and much more from the larger, less wealthy sectors... the people most affected by laws, regulations, taxes, etc.
The top 1% already have it made.

 

[Gurdari]

Remember that in socialism the big businesses are basically controlled by the elite few running the government while their duped followers run around chirping how socialism is for the "greater good".

Example? What socialist nation serves as an example for any future situations? Meaning, how can you predict how a country will manifest socialism? Democractic socialism... is most likely the future. But it could take very different forms, like democracy in general varies from Mugabe's version, to Chavez's, to Blair's... if the people are allowed to affect the democratic process, then any nation could become socialiist, then capitalist, then something else... then back again, as the will of the citizenry changes and evolves. US could be filled with comrades in a few decades, who knows?

And if an 'elite few' do control big business, better that there isSOME mechanism to affect that elite segment in government, while in private business all you can do is not buy from them. (look how much damage I did to Exxon by not driving anymore - I sure showed them)

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Example? What socialist nation serves as an example for any future situations? Meaning, how can you predict how a country will manifest socialism? Democractic socialism... is most likely the future. But it could take very different forms, like democracy in general varies from Mugabe's version, to Chavez's, to Blair's... if the people are allowed to affect the democratic process, then any nation could become socialiist, then capitalist, then something else... then back again, as the will of the citizenry changes and evolves. US could be filled with comrades in a few decades, who knows?

And if an 'elite few' do control big business, better that there isSOME mechanism to affect that elite segment in government, while in private business all you can do is not buy from them. (look how much damage I did to Exxon by not driving anymore - I sure showed them)

Examples? Remember the USSR? Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Such a grand success. Europe's socialist countries are also no great success. Just look at their high unemployment rates and high tax rates.

Tell you what, you go live in Venezuela under the rule of Chavez and let us how you like it. If you like shopping at stores like you do in America, I seriously doubt that you will enjoy it much.

Yes, the U.S. could very well be filled with "comrades" in a few decades. That is why I am seriously against leftists like Hillary and Nanny Nancy gaining power. Do you actually think that democracy would survive under a socialist or communist state?

What "mechanism" is going to control the elite masters in a socialistic state any better than a capitalist state? At least in a capitalistic state you can choose to not buy your gas at Exxon because you have the choice to run over to a competing gas station such as Shell. Under a socialistic state you probably wouldn't have that choice.

 

[Dr Grump]

Examples? Remember the USSR? Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Such a grand success. Europe's socialist countries are also no great success. Just look at their high unemployment rates and high tax rates.

Tell you what, you go live in Venezuela under the rule of Chavez and let us how you like it. If you like shopping at stores like you do in America, I seriously doubt that you will enjoy it much.

Yes, the U.S. could very well be filled with "comrades" in a few decades. That is why I am seriously against leftists like Hillary and Nanny Nancy gaining power. Do you actually think that democracy would survive under a socialist or communist state?

What "mechanism" is going to control the elite masters in a socialistic state any better than a capitalist state? At least in a capitalistic state you can choose to not buy your gas at Exxon because you have the choice to run over to a competing gas station such as Shell. Under a socialistic state you probably wouldn't have that choice.

We have a leftist govt and have one of the lowest unemployment rates in the western world. Interest and tax rates are not that bad either.

Comparing communism to liberalism is disingenuous. A bit like comparing facism to conservatism.

To compare Nancy and HIllary to communism or socialism just proves you ahve never lived under such a state, or you don't know the meanings of the terms. A nice mixture of both should work. Works here, in Oz and England...those societies are fine as far as I can tell.

 

[Gurdari]

Examples? Remember the USSR? Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Such a grand success. Europe's socialist countries are also no great success. Just look at their high unemployment rates and high tax rates.

The USSR was held together by totalitarian force and suppression - not the will of the people. What kind of socialism is run by the decisions of the few? Not any true version. Europe's socialist countries? Examples? From what I've read, those northern countries have HUGE taxes, and very low illiteracy, crime, high employment, high education, strong infrastructure... sounds great.

Tell you what, you go live in Venezuela under the rule of Chavez and let us how you like it. If you like shopping at stores like you do in America, I seriously doubt that you will enjoy it much.

Bad comparison... how about the two of us live in a capitalist latin country (Mexico) and after a year golive in a socialist one (CUba) and see the difference. Or we could live in Venezuela as it was twenty years ago, then live there now and compare...

Yes, the U.S. could very well be filled with "comrades" in a few decades. That is why I am seriously against leftists like Hillary and Nanny Nancy gaining power. Do you actually think that democracy would survive under a socialist or communist state?

Democracy is the bedrock - socialism, or capitalism would flow from the will of the people... (in my example). I was meaning that it's possible to spring up anywhere people have control over their own affairs... just like any form of economy can be achieved if the will is there.

What "mechanism" is going to control the elite masters in a socialistic state any better than a capitalist state? At least in a capitalistic state you can choose to not buy your gas at Exxon because you have the choice to run over to a competing gas station such as Shell. Under a socialistic state you probably wouldn't have that choice.

Mechanism?The government, which is accountable to the citizens FAR NORE than the board of directors at Exxon. I have no say in who get selected to that, Exxon has no legal responsibility to me, or to the nation, they only have a responsibility to themselves (like any company). No big deal, but I'd rather at least some amount of citizen influence in how the nation is run... and going across the street to by gas is a false choice. How can affect the way Exxon does business, or drills, or sets prices? If some sort of bidding war, or consumer competition actually affected the gas prices, by now they'd be rock bottom, instead of eerily similar between "competitors".

 

[ScreamingEagle]

We have a leftist govt and have one of the lowest unemployment rates in the western world. Interest and tax rates are not that bad either.

Comparing communism to liberalism is disingenuous. A bit like comparing facism to conservatism.

To compare Nancy and HIllary to communism or socialism just proves you ahve never lived under such a state, or you don't know the meanings of the terms. A nice mixture of both should work. Works here, in Oz and England...those societies are fine as far as I can tell.

Sure thing dude. Along with higher taxes, etc. we should just follow leftist Hillary so we can have the same great Socialized medical program that England has…

England’s Socialist Healthcare System Bankrupt
02/22/2007

I know, what a shock. A centrally-planned government-run industry providing poor service and failing to make money? That’s never happened.
I’ll hit all the salient points I found here.

First: “Closing NHS Beds Is A Sign Of Success”

PATRICIA Hewitt last night incredibly declared that NHS bed closures are a sign of success - because it means fewer people need care.

The Health Secretary’s astonishing claim came as it was announced 900 jobs are being axed at hospitals in and around her constituency to save local health chiefs £90million.

Despite many NHS trusts facing financial collapse, ward closures and thousands of staff being given the boot, Ms Hewitt insisted Labour’s controversial reforms will save lives.

Launching her defence of the changes, she said: “More money will be going into nurses in all fields to transform the quality of life and care for people in their home or closer to home.

“That will mean fewer emergency admissions, so you need fewer beds.
“Fewer beds are a sign of success - not a sign of failure.

Yes, everybody knows that the first sign of a successful business is shedding jobs, closing branches, and selling off equipment by the thousands. And everybody also knows that the ideal in the medical community is to have the capacity to treat as few people as possible. Ideally, a hospital would have no beds, equipment, or employees, because that means nobody gets sick.

Second: Waiting Lists

A quarter of local health groups in England are asking patients to wait longer for hospital care to bring down NHS deficits, a BBC survey suggests.

Two thirds of the 152 primary care trusts (PCTs) responded.

Some are imposing minimum waiting times, while others are telling patients and GPs they won’t pay for some treatments until April.

Health minister Caroline Flint said some areas had to “live within their means” but patients would not suffer.

In some areas patients are even finding that certain treatments have simply been taken off the list for NHS funding.

Millie Lomas, 72, went to her local hospital last week for an injection to help with her chronic back pain.

Her consultant told Mrs Lomas that North Yorkshire and York PCT is no longer funding the injections. It is one on the list of indefinitely suspended treatments.

Mrs Lomas said she was flabbergasted after four years of regular treatment to have it withdrawn without any warning.

Yep, nothing like waiting months for treatment, and the government suddenly deciding to not cover you anymore to boot. After all, what are you going to do? Go to a competitor? Sorry, sucker!

http://kallinibrothers.com/index.php?/weblog/comments/englands_socialist_healthcare_system_bankrupt/

 

[Dr Grump]

Sure thing dude. Along with higher taxes, etc. we should just follow leftist Hillary so we can have the same great Socialized medical program that England has…

England’s Socialist Healthcare System Bankrupt
02/22/2007

I know, what a shock. A centrally-planned government-run industry providing poor service and failing to make money? That’s never happened.
I’ll hit all the salient points I found here.

First: “Closing NHS Beds Is A Sign Of Success”

Second: Waiting Lists

Yep, nothing like waiting months for treatment, and the government suddenly deciding to not cover you anymore to boot. After all, what are you going to do? Go to a competitor? Sorry, sucker!

http://kallinibrothers.com/index.php?/weblog/comments/englands_socialist_healthcare_system_bankrupt/

You can get medical insurance in England, too. Nobody who needs urgent/life threatening surgery is left to wait. Only elective surgery. Some parts of the NGS suck, but some parts are great...

 

[ScreamingEagle]

You can get medical insurance in England, too. Nobody who needs urgent/life threatening surgery is left to wait. Only elective surgery. Some parts of the NGS suck, but some parts are great...

Yeah, sure thing. "Elective" surgery covers a whole lot of ground. There are many people who have suffered greatly because they have had to wait for "elective" surgery. Many get to wait until it is "life threatening" before they get care.

Wake up from your dream dude. Competitive medical care is the only way to go. It's what has made U.S. medical care the best in the world (before the HMOs and the illegals took over).

 

[ScreamingEagle]

The USSR was held together by totalitarian force and suppression - not the will of the people. What kind of socialism is run by the decisions of the few? Not any true version. Europe's socialist countries? Examples? From what I've read, those northern countries have HUGE taxes, and very low illiteracy, crime, high employment, high education, strong infrastructure... sounds great.

If people are to have control over their own affairs then they must live in a capitalist state. Capitalism is based on individual control. Socialism is based on group control.

Bad comparison... how about the two of us live in a capitalist latin country (Mexico) and after a year golive in a socialist one (CUba) and see the difference. Or we could live in Venezuela as it was twenty years ago, then live there now and compare...

Bad idea. Mexico does not have a constitution like us. Big difference. There you only got the jefes and the gente, and the gente don't have much freedom. The state owns most of the property (like a socialist state does) and the jefes (who of course run the state) own most of the rest. Not a whole lot of free capitalism.

If you don't think Castro took over Cuba by force and maintained his power by force, then you need to talk to the Cuban refugees in Miami to get a real life education.

You know that Chavez idolizes Castro? Enough said.

Democracy is the bedrock - socialism, or capitalism would flow from the will of the people... (in my example). I was meaning that it's possible to spring up anywhere people have control over their own affairs... just like any form of economy can be achieved if the will is there.

If people have control over their own affairs then they must live in a capitalist state. Capitalism is based on individualism. Socialism is based on groups.

Mechanism?The government, which is accountable to the citizens FAR NORE than the board of directors at Exxon. I have no say in who get selected to that, Exxon has no legal responsibility to me, or to the nation, they only have a responsibility to themselves (like any company). No big deal, but I'd rather at least some amount of citizen influence in how the nation is run... and going across the street to by gas is a false choice. How can affect the way Exxon does business, or drills, or sets prices? If some sort of bidding war, or consumer competition actually affected the gas prices, by now they'd be rock bottom, instead of eerily similar between "competitors".

So you think businesses can be sucessfully run by democratic elections?

Under democratic capitalism the rules should be the same for everybody. Individuals should be able to create and run their own companies. So what if some individual companies get big and make a lot of money? Exactly what's wrong with that?