• Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
  • If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders

For all things relative to politics.

BigLutz

Banned
The emancipation proclamation was the single most raciest document in US history.

“I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races—that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this, that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And in as much as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.” Abraham Lincoln 1858

Just because he freed the slaves does not mean he believed that blacks were equal. Lincoln was a white man living in the 1800s, do not get any ideas that he believed in any sort of racial equality.
 

Tim the turtle

Happy Mudkip
Lincoln wasn't much better when it came to being a racist. Which I believe is the bust that he replaced it with. That being said it was a gester of good will from our closest allies after 9/11. Best thing he could do was find some place else in the White House to put it.
I'm fully aware of that, but if Obama wants Lincoln as his hero (as the article suggests) then I'm hardly going to say that he can't have his head in his office. Besides, I want that bust of Churchill back in my own country thank you very much.
 
Except Saudi Arabia isn't our only oil supplier. Granted I don't think it is something that weakened us, but it was a idiotic maneuver, and probably is the fault of the State Department for not informing Obama, than his own fault.
Nope, they're not our only oil supplier, but they're a huge one. You can say that our dependence on oil doesn't weaken us, but think about what kind of crisis America would go into if suddenly Saudi Arabia just says, "Eh, screw you guys, we're never going to give you a single barrel of oil ever again."



I would think each one of them could have a bit of blame placed on them. Each of them could have begun drilling for US oil long ago, each one of them didn't.
True, unfortunately idiots like Nancy Pelosi have hindered that.



See the problem is that it is a propaganda piece, Chavez is very anti freedom, and will use that to say the US supports him. Our allies in the region, the ones that truly can bring about change and freedom to South America, are looking at that video, and wondering if the US stands with them. Not to mention Chavez can use that video to bolster his cause.
How do you know Chavez will do that? Talking to him isn't enough for him to say the US is behind him 100%, he'll start saying that when we start major trading and policy agreements, something American won't be doing anytime soon.



He should have moved away, or politely declined the book. Obama is a skilled politician, he knows how to get away from those circumstances, and he knows the potential fall out a friendly smile and handshake with Chavez can bring to South America.
Yes, he could have denied it, but then here in the US a lot of people in his party frown upon him and consider it rude and disrespectful. So it's lose lose.



Saudi Arabia is also a ally of ours, Venezuela isn't. Not to mention Saudi Arabia isn't trying their best to undermine the Governments of the surrounding nations. As for Iran, you really didnt provide a defense to it.
Saudi Arabia may not be undermining governments, but it sure is undermining their own people. They have extreme human and women's rights issues.



And what proof do you have of that? I mean when Obama announced the closure he had no idea what to do with the prisoners. He has gone around the world begging for nations to take them, and has found few if no takers. It has gotten to the point that he has decided to start releasing them into the US. He has put very little effort into what will happen to Guitmo Prisoners, and has gotten even smaller results.
Uhm, I would assume proof isn't needed. It's only...logical to assume that he's had discussion about Guantanamo behind the scenes, and that it's not something he's completely igorning. I mean, if he decided to detain some inside the US, then that means it's still an issue...



Obama has brought alot of the criticism on himself. Not to mention the Democrats have been heaving criticism back at Republicans * The Rush Limbaugh thing, or the Tea Party thing *. Lets also not forget that there was also criticism on Clinton when he bowed, so to act as if the Republicans on that issue are giving Obama special treatment is a utter lie.
Yes, and I think that is exactly the right point. It really doesn't matter who is in charge, the opposite party is going to slander and throw crap no matter what. That's something that is not change for quite some time.


95% of the stuff? You named one thing and then claim 95% of it isn't a issue.
Bowing to the King of Saudi Arabia, accepting a book, nominating Janet, inviting so and so to talk, lifting major bans and restrictions with Cuba to list a few. Some of the major things Obama has left to do with Cuba is to allow you and me to travel to Cuba. Trading another main thing, but that is more with the government, while traveling is more of a personal thing.


How about the Bush Trials? How about releasing the CIA pictures? How about neutering our interrogation procedures? How about his lies on the guns going into Mexico from the US? How about working to push through Illigal Immigration reform? How about releasing Al Qaeda trained terrorists into the US? Mind you those are just off the top of my head.
Obama has already said he isn't going to persecute anyone involved in the torture techniques. Again, anything with releasing CIA memos or pictures or anything shouldn't have been done in that fashion. And could you exactly explain to me the gun thing?
 

BigLutz

Banned
Nope, they're not our only oil supplier, but they're a huge one. You can say that our dependence on oil doesn't weaken us, but think about what kind of crisis America would go into if suddenly Saudi Arabia just says, "Eh, screw you guys, we're never going to give you a single barrel of oil ever again."

They are a huge one, but not our biggest one. According to 2007 US imports, they are our second biggest one with 15.8% of US oil.

Anyway I think they would be in much worse trouble than we would. We could rely on increased oil output from our own coast line, as well as oil deposits inside of the US. As well as countries like Canada and Mexico. Which together already account for 32% of our imports of oil. Saudi Arabia on the other hand cannot survive with out oil exports. They would be thrown into chaos and be no better off than any other Middle Eastern country.

How do you know Chavez will do that? Talking to him isn't enough for him to say the US is behind him 100%, he'll start saying that when we start major trading and policy agreements, something American won't be doing anytime soon.

How do I know Chavez will do that? Because it is what any other dictator thug would do. Mind you it wasn't just a smile and brief talk, it was the book too. It looked like a friendly relationship and just enough propaganda to use against our anti Chavez allies in Venezuela.


Yes, he could have denied it, but then here in the US a lot of people in his party frown upon him and consider it rude and disrespectful. So it's lose lose.

Considering how much Chavez hates the United States, has called the previous President a Devil, has shut down nearly all freedoms in his country, was quoted in Iran saying "The United States empire is on its way down and it will be finished in the near future, inshallah (Arabic: God willing)". Not to mention was quoted TODAY saying: Capitalism "threatens life on this planet"

Obama would be getting cudos points for not wanting to have anything to do with a thug who has spent the last few years trashing this country and everything it stands for.

Saudi Arabia may not be undermining governments, but it sure is undermining their own people. They have extreme human and women's rights issues.

They do, and it is a horrible thing, but if we were to only have relationships with countries that have good human rights records we would have the European Union, and Japan and that is about it. Not to mention before Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia was our only real military base in the region. We lose that and we lose a major strategic position in the heart of the middle east.

Uhm, I would assume proof isn't needed. It's only...logical to assume that he's had discussion about Guantanamo behind the scenes, and that it's not something he's completely igorning. I mean, if he decided to detain some inside the US, then that means it's still an issue...

Seeing how he announced it's closure with absolutely no clue as to where to send them, and has gotten very little help from other nations in taking them. Not to mention he is dealing with several crisis right now. It is probably being punted down the road till the very last minute while they deal with more important things. Problem is that by doing this Obama will be just creating a whole new crisis when it comes time to shut it down.

Which is why we are already 1/3rd of the way to Obama's dead line, and we have not even surpassed the very first steps

Yes, and I think that is exactly the right point. It really doesn't matter who is in charge, the opposite party is going to slander and throw crap no matter what. That's something that is not change for quite some time.

Except part of the problem, especially the Rush Limbaugh thing and the "I won" thing has created these attacks. You get ****** that Republicans are attacking Obama on everything, but this mood of "You hate me, I hate you" was created by Obama's own staff.


Bowing to the King of Saudi Arabia, accepting a book, nominating Janet, inviting so and so to talk, lifting major bans and restrictions with Cuba to list a few.

Well lets break this down. Bowing to the king will probably be remembered down the road as a Foreign Policy gaff.

Accepting a book from Chavez could have horrible undermining effects to our allies in the region so that IS a issue.

Janet Napolitano is a absolute idiot, and the effects she is having on Foreign Policy will be felt while she is in office.

Inviting so and so to talk, especially with out pre condisions is a very dangerous gamble that has not always paid off for us in the past ( See Kennedy's first year ).

As for lifting restrictions on Cuba, seeing how it is a murderous regime who is even more of a strangle hold on its people than Venezuela, that really can back fire on him when Republicans start trudging out Cuban Exile after Cuban Exile talking about how hellish the country is. Not to mention is pisses off the Cuban Immigrant population.

Some of the major things Obama has left to do with Cuba is to allow you and me to travel to Cuba. Trading another main thing, but that is more with the government, while traveling is more of a personal thing.

No both of them are connected with the Government. As stated before Cuban is a communist country with a stranglehold on the population. Money spent there will end up in Castro's hands no matter what. I do love how ever that you have some kind of glamorous view of Cuba, who's murderous and dangerous Government has been a blight on that island and its people for so very long.

Obama has already said he isn't going to persecute anyone involved in the torture techniques. Again, anything with releasing CIA memos or pictures or anything shouldn't have been done in that fashion. And could you exactly explain to me the gun thing?

No Obama said he wouldn't procecute the people that carried it out, the lawyers who were asked by the President to do it is fair game. It doesn't matter anyway, Obama already flip flopped on one, it shouldn't be hard for him to do it again. Not to mention that once the partisan committee hearing comes back with its findings, it may be too late to decide who to and who not to go after.

As for the Gun thing it is part of the stupidity issued by Hillary and Obama that 90% of the Guns used in Mexico right now are from the United States.

The problem is that they are blatantly lying so that they can make the US look bad and push for further gun control. The truth is that only 17% of guns found in Mexico Crime Scenes are from the United States. When Mexican Authorities find the guns that have markings they can trace, they send them off to the United States. Problem is most guns found in Mexico have absolutely no markings.

So for example in 2007-2008, Mexico found 29,000 guns at crime scenes, of that they sent us 11,000 guns to trace, of that only 6,000 could be successfully traced. Of those 6,000, 90% of them could be successfully traced to being from the United States.

The rest of the guns found in Mexico, can come from a variety of sources from South Korea to Russia.

But the Obama Administration does not want to mention that, since it doesn't help them place higher gun restrictions on the US, and it doesn't make the US look bad.

"This war is being waged with guns purchased not here but in the United States . . . more than 90 percent of the guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States, many from gun shops that lay in our shared border. So we have responsibilities as well." - Obama April 16th.
 
Last edited:

randomspot555

Well-Known Member
Specter switches parties

Never was a big fan of people switching parties while they're in office. Not because politicians shouldn't do so, but when people vote, they don't necessarily vote for the name, but they vote for the party.

I'm surprised that this is accepted at the national level, because the handful of party-switchers in Congress seem to keep getting elected. We've had a few city-council members and state reps in my neck of the woods pull this, and they're almost all immediately thrown out as soon as an election comes up.

I'm also surprised that the Republican caucus didn't trip over themselves getting Specter to stay. I've read a number of conservative blogs advocate that losing the moderate reps in Congress is fine, but it doesn't seem to be a great strategy while in the minority. Especially in Pennsylvania. Where even the Republicans that are elected and seen as conservative, such as Santorum, have some more liberal political stances.
 

BigLutz

Banned
The reason you dont see the Republicans tripping over themselves is that they know just like Specter that he was going to be out come 2010. He was down 21 points to Toomey in the primary, and the hate for him on voting for the Stimulus Packages was just too strong. Besides him switching allows the Republicans to avoid a bloody primary fight, before then going after Specter for not only abandoning to Republicans, but lying that he was leaving just weeks before he did so.
 

CabbyFish

It's B and it's W...
Senator Arlen Specter's party switch was actually the most surprising thing I heard on the political front today. Even with Specter though, the democrats aren't guaranteed to recieve his vote on almost everything, for example EFCA.

Specter not a Guaranteed Vote for Dems

The best news of the day though would have to be Sebelius finally getting confirmed by the Senate 65-31. The big question is, who keeps skipping votes (discounting Ted Kennedy and Al Franken)?

Sebelius Confirmed by Senate
 

Ethan

Banned
Great, now the senate has 60 dems. What the hell is it with all these halfassed Republicans? I wish Barry Goldwater would come back and give them all a good pimp slapping.
 

randomspot555

Well-Known Member
Senator Arlen Specter's party switch was actually the most surprising thing I heard on the political front today. Even with Specter though, the democrats aren't guaranteed to recieve his vote on almost everything, for example EFCA.

Ultimately, that doesn't matter. As long as they can get all of them to vote for cloture (the vote to take a vote), then he and a handful of others can vote against whatever they want.

The best news of the day though would have to be Sebelius finally getting confirmed by the Senate 65-31. The big question is, who keeps skipping votes (discounting Ted Kennedy and Al Franken)?

Many members of Congress decide not to show up for votes when it's expected to likely pass or likely fail. It varies depending on how high profile the vote is and if their constituents care about it and if they have something better to do.
 

BigLutz

Banned
My favorite LOL moment of this early morning.

Specter is going to face challengers in the Democratic Primary

Fox News said:
Rep. Joe Sestak, who's been a prolific fundraiser, is considering defying party leaders and running against Specter despite Tuesday's hoopla, though he told FOXNews.com on Wednesday, "I have not made up my mind on it."

Sestak, a second-term House member, is basing his decision on what Specter may do or say in the coming days. Sestak said he wants to hear Specter make his case to Pennsylvania voters about why Specter now should carry the banner for Democrats after representing the Keystone State as a Republican for 29 years.

and

The other potential challenger to Specter for the Democratic nomination for senator is Joe Torsella, a former Rendell aide who headed the National Constitution Center and is now chairman of the Pennsylvania Board of Education.

In a written statement Tuesday, Torsella reiterated that he decided to run for Senate to bring new leadership to the chamber.

"Nothing about today's news regarding Senator Specter changes that, or my intention to run for the Democratic nomination to the Senate in 2010 -- an election that is still a full year away," he said.

You have alot of ****** off Republicans who still have their party allegiance switched to Democrat since they voted in the Democrat Presidential Primaries. And you have alot of Pennsylvanians who feel betrayed by the switch.

Now granted Specter switched for cowardly and pathetic reasons, reasons that won't help him at all in the primaries or the general election. It would just be poetic justice that Specter makes one of if not the stupidest move of his career ( if you do not count the Stimulus Vote ). So that he could stay in Washington instead of getting raped by Toomey in the Republican Election, and he may end up losing in the Democrat one.
 

BigLutz

Banned

Squirtle85

Ready, Set, and GO
I smell a republican mayority in the house by 2010. specially after the way Democrats are handling things
 

randomspot555

Well-Known Member
What would Governor Jindal do with a budget surplus?

Tax cuts? Nah.

Save it...you know, in case it might be needed for some reason? Hell no.

He dumps it into a moneypi....er, Superdome.

The justification for this is complete bull. The team currently is getting $23.5 million based on hotel-motel taxes which have fallen short for years, but the payment to the team hasn't. Jindal can't be blamed for that, since that sweetheart deal was cut by the previous administration. But there's no excuse for shoveling money to someone when the taxes don't add up.

Okay, so $23.5 million cut down to $6million. It's still subsidizing millionaires in the false promise that big sports contributes to the overall economy of a city and state.* source * It's not great, but politics is the art of the possible and it's a cut.

But to make up for the pay cut, Jindal is going to dump $85 million in the state's "rainy day" fund to renovate the Superdome.

And by how this deal is talked about in the two articles (behind closed doors), despite the House being controlled by Democrats, the Senate and Governor's office controlled by Republicans, there's one thing they can all agree on: Welfare for millionaires.

I wonder if Louisiana would be interested in the Simons. They like government money too, and Indianapolis is certainly looking to get rid of them.
 
Last edited:

BigLutz

Banned
Technically a big sporting event can contribute to the city's over all economy. Maybe not a regular game, or play off game. But it was the same argument used when Jerry World was created. The stadium can bring big money events such as the Super Bowl to a city which can bring money to the city and state in bucket loads. Seeing how the last Super Bowl in New Orleans was in 2002, I would guess the city in the new future is going to begin to make another bid for it in the next five years.

An independent study by PricewaterhouseCoopers showed the Super Bowl could draw 98,000 visitors and have $262 million in economic impact on the area...

That being from Indy's study for Super Bowl XLV

Anyway...

White House threatens Chrysler Investors with the White House Press Corp

The thing no one really is talking about is the restructuring deal that went down. Not only did the White House pretty much kill Chrysler by giving the UAW, the Union that got the company into its present situation a controlling share in the company at 55%.

But it intimidated bondholders with threats of public humiliation. Now really these bondholders do have rights which would be played out in a court room if this was a normal bankruptcy. But "Godfather Obama" can't have that, so he would rather twist some arms. Yeah... this is going to end sooooo well.

Only 3 more years guys, then we can kick these idiots out.
 
Last edited:

randomspot555

Well-Known Member
Technically a big sporting event can contribute to the city's over all economy. Maybe not a regular game, or play off game. But it was the same argument used when Jerry World was created. The stadium can bring big money events such as the Super Bowl to a city which can bring money to the city and state in bucket loads. Seeing how the last Super Bowl in New Orleans was in 2002, I would guess the city in the new future is going to begin to make another bid for it in the next five years.

Even assuming that premise is true, it relies on one consistently hosting these events year after year. It's true that big events do bring in a lot of outside money.

But most of the time, stadiums won't be host to big event games. They'll be used as normal. Normal season games, or concerts or other events held at stadiums, are just regional consumers spending money, which would've likely be spent elsewhere if the concert/game/whatever at the stadium wasn't available.

Even so, if sports franchises are so profitable, then there's no reason that they need to be getting welfare from the state. There's a difference between tax breaks to encourage business growth of a certain sector and just writing a check for millions of dollars to an individual private enterprise. Jindal will have nothing to stand on when it comes to talking about wasteful government spending if he lets this pass.
 

BigLutz

Banned
Even assuming that premise is true, it relies on one consistently hosting these events year after year. It's true that big events do bring in a lot of outside money.

But most of the time, stadiums won't be host to big event games. They'll be used as normal. Normal season games, or concerts or other events held at stadiums, are just regional consumers spending money, which would've likely be spent elsewhere if the concert/game/whatever at the stadium wasn't available.

Even so, if sports franchises are so profitable, then there's no reason that they need to be getting welfare from the state. There's a difference between tax breaks to encourage business growth of a certain sector and just writing a check for millions of dollars to an individual private enterprise. Jindal will have nothing to stand on when it comes to talking about wasteful government spending if he lets this pass.

I assume you didn't see the link I posted in my post stating that a Super Bowl brings in 262 million dollars in economic impact to a city? Not to mention a major event like a Super Bowl would be huge in helping to repair New Orleans still faltering image post Katrina.
 
Last edited:

randomspot555

Well-Known Member
I assume you didn't see the link I posted in my post stating that a Super Bowl brings in 262 million dollars in economic impact to a city? Not to mention a major event like a Super Bowl would be huge in helping to repair New Orleans still faltering image post Katrina.

And you missed my first line where I said that big events do bring in outside money. But cities don't often host Super Bowls back-to-back (but New Orleans does have a record of hosting it 9 times). In the case they do, there's at least a 3 year gap, likely more, which still leaves the 99% of the other time where the stadium doesn't do much except offer consumers an additional place to spend money.

Regardless, for a man who gave a speech on national television listing much of the pork in the stimulus package, this is a prime example of government wasteful spending. Especially since this is money from a surplus (and congratulations to any in Louisiana's state government who managed to come up with one). This money could do real good. It could go back into what is presumably programs that lost funding, or a relatively small tax break, or any number of ways, instead of welfare for those with connections.

Last I checked, the NFL and it's teams are privately run businesses. They should be able to stand on their own 2 feet without getting huge checks from cities and state legislatures (and if their business can't succeed without it, then it should be allowed to fail). The city and state can do their part (to encourage events like the Super Bowl, NCAA events, and other big sporting events) in ensuring that roads are paved, taxes for hospitality industries are low, and an informed and financed police force for heightened security, and the private industry can ensure maintenance and expansion of their stadium and training facilities.

Unfortunately, this will ultimately mean nothing. Jindal and the state legislature will make sure the check is handed over, and then pay for some premium office space, and no one will care. Because hey, wooo, sports!

But I won't care (too much) as long as Jindal isn't able to handle my tax dollars.
 
Last edited:

BigLutz

Banned
And you missed my first line where I said that big events do bring in outside money. But cities don't often host Super Bowls back-to-back (but New Orleans does have a record of hosting it 9 times). In the case they do, there's at least a 3 year gap, likely more, which still leaves the 99% of the other time where the stadium doesn't do much except offer consumers an additional place to spend money.

Except it is common practice for a city or state to devote millions to spruce up a area for a Super Bowl bid. Even if it is a one time thing, it brings in more than enough money to pay back the investment, as well as provides good PR coverage for the city.

Regardless, for a man who gave a speech on national television listing much of the pork in the stimulus package, this is a prime example of government wasteful spending.

Major Difference. This money was a Surplus, and pretty much Guaranteed to make money.

The Stimulus was a deficit with no guarantee to see a significant return on investment.

Last I checked, the NFL and it's teams are privately run businesses.

And Governments devote money to the Stadium and surrounding area to bring in events. It's a common practice all around the United States. Hell, Arlington Texas gave Jerry Jones 325 million to help build the Dallas Cowboys stadium so that they could have a Super bowl bid.

They should be able to stand on their own 2 feet without getting huge checks from cities and state legislatures (and if their business can't succeed without it, then it should be allowed to fail).

The NFL doesn't care which cities have a Super Bowl, and while the teams are probably going to front some money for this operation. Especially when it comes to the Stadium, they do need the city/state to invest some as well.

The city and state can do their part (to encourage events like the Super Bowl, NCAA events, and other big sporting events) in ensuring that roads are paved, taxes for hospitality industries are low, and an informed and financed police force for heightened security, and the private industry can ensure maintenance and expansion of their stadium and training facilities.

How about the area around the stadium? The NFL cannot and would not pay for that, which I believe the money is going to as well. And really the city is going to make money by this, shop keepers and private businesses are going to make money because of this. All in all it's a win win for everyone, and is a common practice all over the United States. It seems that the only reason YOU don't like it, is because it is a popular Republican Governor that is doing it.
 
Last edited:

randomspot555

Well-Known Member
Except it is common practice for a city or state to devote millions to spruce up a area for a Super Bowl bid. Even if it is a one time thing, it brings in more than enough money to pay back the investment, as well as provides good PR coverage for the city.

I don't buy that just because it's common practice, it's justified. It's still government supporting a private industry that should be able to support itself.

Major Difference. This money was a Surplus, and pretty much Guaranteed to make money.

Unless of course, a Super Bowl isn't hosted. Or the stadium renovations cost more than intiially projected. Or that the deal is for more money (note how Jindal dodges the question of talking about the deal)

The Stimulus was a deficit with no guarantee to see a significant return on investment.

Government waste is government waste is government waste.

And Governments devote money to the Stadium and surrounding area to bring in events. It's a common practice all around the United States.

And governments should stop handing out welfare to sports teams and corporations who want to build their HQ in and just encourage business growth in general.

You do bring up a decent point in the "surrounding area." That's true, someone shouldn't have to worry about the rotting away building next door. But making a city look nice should be a city (and, to some extent, the state)'s goal regardless of sports events/conventions activities. It should, in theory, already be done, or provide the city some motivation to get it done.

The NFL doesn't care which cities have a Super Bowl, and while the teams are probably going to front some money for this operation. Especially when it comes to the Stadium, they do need the city/state to invest some as well.

I don't see why a government has to chip in. Maintenance of roads and other public facilities, and funding for a police force as well as making the city itself looks good seems like more than enough. The funding for a stadium, practice fields, and anything that relates to a private industry in a way to make money for a private industry should be paid by the private industry.

It seems that the only reason YOU don't like it, is because it is a popular Republican Governor that is doing it.

With a Democratic majority in the House and a Republican majority in the Senate in Louisiana, it's a bi-partisan waste of funding. If there's one thing that Democrats and Republicans can agree to waste money on, it's sports. A succession of mayors and governors of [insert small market city/medium sized state here] can pretty much attest to that.

The only reason I know about the news is because a local blogger, who served as an alternate delegate to the 1984 Republican National Convention and was active in Illinois Republican politics, posted about it. But hey, he probably just hates Republicans like the Republican he support for the 7th district of Indiana (defeated by Andre Carson), Jon Elrod or the tons of praise on the Palin rally during the 2008 election.
 

BigLutz

Banned
I don't buy that just because it's common practice, it's justified. It's still government supporting a private industry that should be able to support itself.

And normally it should, but New Orleans put in a Super Bowl bit just a few months ago, and since it is something that wont just bring the team money, but bring the city and state a massive influx of cash, the state can put some up.

Unless of course, a Super Bowl isn't hosted. Or the stadium renovations cost more than intiially projected. Or that the deal is for more money (note how Jindal dodges the question of talking about the deal)

The Super Bowl bid was placed in February, they may get it, they may not, but unless they fix up the surrounding area and the damage done to the stadium their chances decrease. As for if they need more money, I would think they would deal with that problem when they came to it, and either have the city pay for it through bonds, or have the team pay for it depending on what it is for.

Government waste is government waste is government waste.

Except you are comparing Apples and Oranges here and you know it.

And governments should stop handing out welfare to sports teams and corporations who want to build their HQ in and just encourage business growth in general.

It isn't welfare, they could easily have told the teams that the Stadium and surrounding area is fine as is. But then again they would lose the Super Bowl bid, lose anywhere between 300 and 400 million dollars, and lose some desperately needed PR for the city.

You do bring up a decent point in the "surrounding area." That's true, someone shouldn't have to worry about the rotting away building next door. But making a city look nice should be a city (and, to some extent, the state)'s goal regardless of sports events/conventions activities. It should, in theory, already be done, or provide the city some motivation to get it done.

Seeing how the City is still recovering from a massive Hurricane that went through and completely leveled the city. They have had their attention focused elsewhere for the last 5 or so years. And if they want to make this bid work for the Super Bowl, they need everyone to step up. The Team, The City, and yes the State.

I don't see why a government has to chip in. Maintenance of roads and other public facilities, and funding for a police force as well as making the city itself looks good seems like more than enough. The funding for a stadium, practice fields, and anything that relates to a private industry in a way to make money for a private industry should be paid by the private industry.

Because the Government wants the Super Bowl bid, the Team doesn't have the money for it, I mean seriously what team just has 80 to 100 million dollars just laying around? And the State and City has the most to benefit from it.

The only reason I know about the news is because a local blogger, who served as an alternate delegate to the 1984 Republican National Convention and was active in Illinois Republican politics, posted about it. But hey, he probably just hates Republicans like the Republican he support for the 7th district of Indiana (defeated by Andre Carson), Jon Elrod or the tons of praise on the Palin rally during the 2008 election.

Republicans right now are split heavily between three to four camps, Palin, Romney, Jindal, and the Ron Paul nuts. Just because he says he is a Republican doesn't mean he supports all four people.
 
Top