SkyDekker

Members
  • Content

    21,691
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    96
  • Feedback

    0%
  • Country

    Canada

Everything posted by SkyDekker

  1. Made him 15 million in one day Kind of hard to argue with that How do you figure that? Where no tickets sold until he made that announcement? Where tickets bought on the condition of him making this announcement? Or, are you trying to twist the truth to try and make a point? How FOXy of you.
  2. Which one, the boy or the girl? There you go trying to think again I would be proud of my son if he gave it his best. If he isn't the greatest wrestler, but enjoys the activity, that would be ok with me. Sounds like you would be rather upset with your son. To each their own I guess.
  3. Why? Return on investment can be non-monetary. When I invest in my child's education, I do not expect to get that money paid back with interest by my child. When a municipality invests in their community, they similarily do not look at the return as solely a financial matter.
  4. The concept is that public-private partnerships can work well. That the concept shouldn't be just simply dismissed. By the way, the city had known for quite some time that they had a tenant which was nearing the end of a lease.
  5. Nope, but many do expect property tax rebates or deferals for newly built buildings, or large office relocates. This also holds true for large scale manufacturing facilities etc. Bullshit. So easy to throw out terms like socialist. Public - private partnerships are nothing new. Public money being used to stimulate private enterprise is nothing new. This is nothing new on a municipal level, a state level or a federal level. So, they fucked up on the deal. That doesn't invalidate the concept.
  6. Guess the act isn't that ordinarily done in private then? Right, cause mostly when you see mother's breastfeed, the kid can't stand and is quite a bit smaller. Which off course is the whole point of the picture. (Not sure how politics plays into this, but I haven't read the actual article. Does the article politize the act of breast feeding?)
  7. And I think that sexualizing the picture reveals more about the person doing so than they probably would want to. It's breast feeding. Granted breast feeding at an age I personalyl am not comfortable with, but it is still breast feeding. Nothing sexual about it. God forbid
  8. You mean they act like a business? They create a product that people want and then get other people to invest in it and maybe even compete for? Whoda thunk such a thing could happen in the US. From a municipalities perspective. It increases the desirability for people to live in communities like that. Many people prefer to live in vibrant communities. Where they can go to live theatre, eat at great restaurants and maybe even take in a game of sports at the highest level. As a city, municipality or even state, you want to be attractive for people to live in. That's how you make your money.
  9. Indeed they make bad decisions. Continuously. Well, the government needs somewhat healthy people to succeed as a country. The less healthy you get as a nation, the more rules and regulations you will start seeing. Don't like that, than as a nation, start making better/healthier decisions.
  10. Good for you, the majority of your country men and women cannot do the same.
  11. Exactly!! Which also means that governments have to make laws to ensure a somewhat healthy population. Left to our own, we tend not to make the best decisions.
  12. Hey, try and remember this post when you call everybody who disagrees with your stance on guns a gun-o-phobe
  13. Also would be useless for procreation, which (wait for it) blows a (wait for it again) hole, in your example
  14. I agree, but that overlooks the fact that municipalities compete against eachother as well. If you look at them as corporations, then it makes sense that they would invest into something like this. If they don't a neighbouring municipality might.
  15. I am arguing the side that public money invested in private companies can be good policy. Using public money to invest in a stadium to be mainly used by a pro team is not necessarily bad policy. Specially if it retains a team. There is a lot between nothing and everything.
  16. That is a direct loss to the city. The other benefits are indirect. Thank you for providing another reason to invest in a private stadium as opposed to using that money to build a purely 'municipal' stadium.
  17. If that is the case, I would suggest you have a problem. There is nothing remotely sexual or sensual about that picture.
  18. Which off course England didn't do. But, we wouldn't want you to be intellectually honest in this discussion, it would be such a change. I already provided an example of the US barring entry based on a tweet. Why bash England for something your own country is doing as well?
  19. You asked: My responding question gave you a hint to the answer. When a city loses a major league team, and the venue goes dark, they certainly lose in property taxes. Then you follow with a scenario regarding building a brand new stadium, where non existed before. Which means you are moving the goal posts. maybe you should figure out which scenario you want to discuss first?
  20. Considering the majority of Americans cannot stop themselves from stuffing their mouths and getting overweight and obese, you as a nation have already proven being unable to make healthy decisions for yourself.
  21. You think property taxes for a vacant stadium are the same as property taxes for an operating stadium?
  22. But what about the lesbians, who will think of the lesbians?
  23. Too funny. ABC is funny? The fact that you aren't getting it is even funnier