Eurodisney and Michael Moore

[HennieBogan1966]

Which is why I once again raise the question why this is okay, but for purposes of politics it isn't?

Isn't what the politicians are doing in a manner of speaking, about business?
Even if it's for their own personal business gain, what's the problem? I mean, if it's okay, and everyone understands ME did it for business purposes right?

 

[Legacy]

Because politicians doing it can have an outcome of how the way of life for the regular person will be. A lot more is at stake with politicians than with a CEO. A CEO only has direct control over the company under them. Politicians can control people's lives.

Yes, it is just "business" for politicians... but it's a much bigger deal because how much more clout they have.

 

[HennieBogan1966]

Hmmm, so....

Good answer. So, in a manner of speaking we could say that it's better for us to avoid dealing with "outside" agencies to help us with our problems here politically speaking? Like, say, I don't know, our NOT relying on the United Nations? Or, not relying on certain countries, who shall remain nameless, (France, Germany), who refuse to aid us in certain situations? Seems you've proved a point for me that I've been trying to make on this situation. Which is this: Michael Eisner should never have been making this kind of deal. It's too risky for the company to be in bed with these people. Furthermore, he and Disney, should be willing to bite the bullet on this situation, no matter what it takes. It's his/their fault for overspending company funds that could've and should've been put to better use here at home for the parks stateside.

So, thanks for the assist on this one.

Hehe!!!!

 

[Legacy]

Eisner making this deal has little chance of greatly effecting our way of life.

If a politician makes the deal, it does.

 

[lebernadin]

Because politicians doing it can have an outcome of how the way of life for the regular person will be. A lot more is at stake with politicians than with a CEO. A CEO only has direct control over the company under them. Politicians can control people's lives.

Yes, it is just "business" for politicians... but it's a much bigger deal because how much more clout they have.

Enron much? CEO's do indeed have more leeway than most politicians because the checks/balances of our political system are stronger than that of the monitoring of publicly traded companies.

I don't think those who lost their retirement/life savings, not to mention jobs, in scandals like Enron would agree with you.

 

[Legacy]

Enron much? CEO's do indeed have more leeway than most politicians because the checks/balances of our political system are stronger than that of the monitoring of publicly traded companies.

I don't think those who lost their retirement/life savings, not to mention jobs, in scandals like Enron would agree with you.

Point taken... but did Enron cause a war? Did Enron ruin foreign policy? Did Enron have a death toll?

I understand that many people were deeply affected by Enron and other corporate scandals. However, what politicians do affects the global level, as well as the personal one.

 

[lebernadin]

Point taken... but did Enron cause a war? Did Enron ruin foreign policy? Did Enron have a death toll?

You're now bringing in entirely different arguments. You said CEOs can't directly affect someone; only their company. This isn't true, hence my Enron example.

Corporations influence bellicose foreign policy all the time. But i'm not going to continue this tangent on this board out of respect for the "no politics" rules as this is getting away from Disney and Eisner.

 

[AliciaLuvzDizne]

why we arent allowed to discuss politics on these boards: People are very passionate about their beliefs which is great, but once someone feels "ganged up" on or threatened...words are exchanged and our "disney atmosphere" is just an unhappy place.


mmmhmmm

 

[Legacy]

But i'm not going to continue this tangent on this board out of respect for the "no politics" rules as this is getting away from Disney and Eisner.

Sounds good.

:wave:

 

[HennieBogan1966]

Okay, so back to the topic. Why is Michael Eisner getting involved with a Saudi family? Why wasn't he forced by the board to bite the bullet on his mismanagement of things? I know it's about the money, which is what steered this conversation off topic? But where are all the Eisner cronies to come to his defense now? He was the man in charge wasn't he? The President, if you will.

Oh, and by the way, neither Enron, NOR President Bush, caused a war, or our foreign policy to be strained. UMMmm, have we forgotten about Sept. 11th already? Remember WE were attacked!!!!


Now, what about Michael Eisner? Hmmm. Why wasn't he corraled during this "shady deal?"

 

[lebernadin]

Okay, so back to the topic. Why is Michael Eisner getting involved with a Saudi family?

I think i already answered this in a prior post. Anyways, you have to view this in its context. The Prince was named by Forbes as the richest person outside of the US in 2000. I'm not sure where he stood back in the early days of DLP when he made his initial investment, but i'm sure he was quite the billionaire then too. Terminology like "saudi family" is only ominous now within the context of what has come to light over the past 5+ years about certain Saudi dealings. So back when DLP needed help and the WDC was helped out by the Prince there wasn't an overarching stigma of "dirty money" or whatever else you may consider it.

The Prince had invested $200 million in Worldcom before its collapse. He has a stake in a good percentage of US companies listed on the Fortune 50. So Disney's acceptance of such bailouts doesn't place them in a unique category as there's a long list of companies we all use the products of on a daily basis that can be connected to the Prince.

There are a few circumstantial theories that the Prince's money finds its way into the hands of AQ, but there is no concrete evidence of this and it can be attributed moreso to anti-Arab sentiment than anything. Guilt by nationality if you will.

Oh, and by the way, neither Enron, NOR President Bush, caused a war, or our foreign policy to be strained. UMMmm, have we forgotten about Sept. 11th already? Remember WE were attacked!!!!

^^^
Case in point why i'm glad, and respect, the "no politics" policy here. :zipit:

 

[lebernadin]

Edit: Post was in response to a now deleted post.

 

[AliciaLuvzDizne]

no i wasnt promoting it

if i OWNEWD the book id be promoting it. i was just mentioning it.

 

[lebernadin]

no i wasnt promoting it

if i OWNEWD the book id be promoting it. i was just mentioning it.

:lookaroun :brick:

You mention the name of a book, and then place a direct link to the amazon page it can be bought at, and that's not promoting it?

Give it up, the semantics angle isn't fooling anyone. :wave:

 

[AliciaLuvzDizne]

so sorry i didnt check with you before i backed up my post with a link to the book that i mentioned.
i'll be sure to check in with you on future posting decisions:wave:

im out of here now, please dont respond to me anymore.

 

[lebernadin]

so sorry i didnt check with you before i backed up my post with a link to the book that i mentioned.

You aren't getting the only point i've made with re to your, now deleted, post. If you had mentioned that book and provided a link to where people could read a deeper analysis or even that chapter in particular then that's one thing.

But instead, you included a link to an online retailer. In other words, if you want to know what is in the chapter, buy the book. Considering there's apparently only a chapter at the most concerning Disney and its primary focus is on attacking Michael Moore.....

 

[AliciaLuvzDizne]

You aren't getting the only point i've made with re to your, now deleted, post. If you had mentioned that book and provided a link to where people could read a deeper analysis or even that chapter in particular then that's one thing.

But instead, you included a link to an online retailer. In other words, if you want to know what is in the chapter, buy the book. Considering there's apparently only a chapter at the most concerning Disney and its primary focus is on attacking Michael Moore.....

that doesnt even make sense to me.
copyright laws come to mind.

 

[lebernadin]

that doesnt even make sense to me.
copyright laws come to mind.

Before using such a poor excuse, you might want to consider what is flanking it, ie using an avatar that is not your own original work, as well as using dialogue from a television sitcom you don't own the rights to in your signature. So obviously you don't prescribe to this excuse yourself.
:wave:

I don't understand the big deal really. You're exacerbating a non-issue. Is Ashlee Simpson contagious? You posted it and then took it down, right? There doesn't seem to be anything left to say....