The Barclay Arena [MERGED TOPIC]

ratnerville4ever · January 2007

no answer Jack?

drano · January 2007

The answer is that Mugabe doesn't get enough criticism, not enough people know or care what he's up to, and saying that Barclays has helped to bankroll his "land reforms" simply isn't as sexy as saying that they bankrolled apartheid if you're looking to blast them or Ratner.

Sadly, it's a hell of a lot more relevant because it's happening right now.

jack krohn · January 2007

The naivete of you people never ceases to amaze me. You have ignored my question about why the apology for Daniel Goldstein's "wealthy white masters" comment is absent from the DDDB archives, and now you demand that I answer your question? Raul, I asked you point blank in a post on 11/15/06 and you overlooked it completely in your response. Tell me, why should I answer you if you won't do the same for me?

No answer, Ratnerville4ever?

Raul, I'm flattered that you took time to research this topic and revive a 10 day old thread in an attempt to pin me into a corner. It's nice to know that I'm worth so much of your time. I'll talk to you guys once it's time to gloat over your next failure.

raulism · January 2007

Jack Krohn wrote: The naivete of you people never ceases to amaze me. You have ignored my question about why the apology for Daniel Goldstein's "wealthy white masters" comment is absent from the DDDB archives, and now you demand that I answer your question? Raul, I asked you point blank in a post on 11/15/06 and you overlooked it completely in your response. Tell me, why should I answer you if you won't do the same for me?

I am sorry I didn't answer your question previously, because I will be glad to answer. I am not in charge of the DDDb website, and I have no official function in that group. On this message board I represent only myself. I do not represent DDDb, nor do I claim to agree with everything it does.

Dan Goldstein's comment was stupid. It also is a great way to ignore the real issues involved in this debate. Were I in charge of the DDDb website, I would also probably leave it off the site because I think the focus of the debate should be on the merit of the Atlantic Yards proposal, not on the rhetoric of the DDDb spokesperson.

Whether or not you find this acceptable or not, I think you should answer my question because I assume that you represent yourself and only yourself. If you want to have any credibility with the other readers of this board, then you probably want to have some sort of consistency.

There are many strings that I don't have time to finish up. Sorry. This board is not my top priority in life, but it would be nice if I had enough time.

So, whether or not I have answered all your questions in the past, my question remains the same. Are human rights violations in Africa are noteworthy only when the offender is a Ratner opponent? Or are you more interested in calling me "naive" than answering my questions?

escap · February 2007

I'll weigh in on this. I am certainly appalled to hear that Barclay's is financing Mugabe, as I put him among the top of the list of the world's worst dictators in every way. I will reserve real judgment since I really don't know the facts, but for the sake of argument I'll grant you that Barclay's has done something terrible here.

That being said, there is a huge difference between Barclay's and Barron: Charles Barron was running for U.S. Representative. If he were elected, our country would have a Mugabe supporter as an elected policy maker and legislator!! That is a far, far cry from permitting advertising by a bank with financial ties to Mugabe. I mean, unless we are going to ban TV commercials, magazine ads, subway banners, etc. by Barclay's, then it's only consistent to allow it stadium naming rights. Also, Barclay's is a British bank, so if the British government is permitting its own corporate citizens to undermine its own foreign policy initiatives, then we should really be taking it up with the U.K. government, not punishing Barclay's for doing something its own govt has given the green light for.

Supporting a sympathizer of a brutal tyrant who is destroying his country and in the process millions of lives because that politician is opposed to a local development project is, I'd say, pretty absurd in comparison.

michaelkeys · February 2007

escap wrote: Supporting a sympathizer of a brutal tyrant who is destroying his country and in the process millions of lives because that politician is opposed to a local development project is, I'd say, pretty absurd in comparison.

You have just, in a nutshell, defined the nature of politics within our system. What is that old saying, "Politics make strange bedfellows" right? Unfortunately, that's how things get done. I imagine it's very hard to shun someone with bloody/dirty hands when they hold the key--thru power and/or influence--to get what you want/need for your community/district etc. Because even if you think you can sleep at night by having taken the moral highground, your constituents are going to keep you awake asking where the hell is that school/park/day care/neighborhood subsidy, etc. they so desperatley needed and that YOU passed on the chance to obtain.

Btw, the above is not about Barron but politics in general. I am not condoning or justifying this behavior in any way, shape or form. It just is.

lp1378 · February 2007

As far as CitiField, I guess it's a matter of personal opinion. I wasn't bothered by the rhyme--do you giggle every time you hear the words New York City (hehe, sounds like New York shitty)...

I know this is late to jump in here. But concerning Citi Field: Personally I can't hear the title without thinking "Shitty Field" a la the proprietor of City Wok on South Park. You're practically handing your opponents a grab bag of insults.

Correction: I just saw where someone else pointed this out above. But that's just the point. It's way too obvious.

escap · February 2007

BTW, on the subject of the Barclays racial controversy, this article in the NY Times discusses complaints by Hakeem Jeffries and others that Barclays was a bad choice for a Bklyn team because of its ties to the slave trade way back when and its alleged support for apartheid in S. Africa. The company denies both charges, but I find it interesting that there's no mention of this Mugabe allegation whatsoever. Where are people getting this from, and why aren't Jeffries, Letitia James, Roger Green and the rest of them making an issue out of it?

raulism · February 2007

escap wrote: BTW, on the subject of the Barclays racial controversy, this article in the NY Times discusses complaints by Hakeem Jeffries and others that Barclays was a bad choice for a Bklyn team because of its ties to the slave trade way back when and its alleged support for apartheid in S. Africa. The company denies both charges, but I find it interesting that there's no mention of this Mugabe allegation whatsoever. Where are people getting this from, and why aren't Jeffries, Letitia James, Roger Green and the rest of them making an issue out of it?

Here is the original article titled "Barclays' millions help to prop up Mugabe regime":
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,2000349,00.html

Here's NoLandGrab's commentary:
http://www.nolandgrab.org/archives/2007/01/barclays_millio.html

Our honorable elected officials may not know about it, or they may just not want to deal with it.

friendlypitbull · February 2007

I am struck by how ridiculous and self-defeating the AY opponents are. Now for disclosure, I am happy about this b/c I support AY. But surely there is someone who is associated with the opposition that must recongnize that jumping up and down in protest about EVERY single aspect of the project and demonizing Ratner and everyone associated with AY ends up totally muddling any legitimate complaints and opposition.

Personally I think Ratner must be thrilled with this current debate as it is a total distraction from any legitimate and real concerns circa 2007.

escap · February 2007

Thanks for the link to the Barclays article. It's curious that the politicians haven't brought this up too--maybe they're trying not to alienate Barron? Who knows. As for whether the bank is in the right or wrong, it's definitely a tricky issue and ultimately it's the U.K. government that is permitting this support. Frankly, with inflation currently well over 1,000%and climbing, I'm shocked that any bank would lend Zimbabwe a nickel--this makes no sense whatsoever. The loans also become worthless overnight to Zimbabwe itself too, so it's doubly nonsensical. Anyway, it's not grounds for our govt to ban advertising by Barclays, so it's a non-issue. The current hoopla is just political gamesmanship in an effort to get more $$ and look good for the voters.

On another note, I'm surprised that AY opponents have anything against Mugabe. As an ardent socialist, anti-corporate class warrior who loves to play the race card, you'd think he'd fight right in at DDDb! (hehe, i can't help the occasional low blow

)

raulism · February 2007

escap wrote: On another note, I'm surprised that AY opponents have anything against Mugabe. As an ardent socialist, anti-corporate class warrior who loves to play the race card, you'd think he'd fight right in at DDDb! (hehe, i can't help the occasional low blow )

C'mon, escap, you can hit harder than that. You know, I'm surprised that AY proponents have anything against Mugabe. As an ardent socialist, anti-corporate class warrior who loves to play the race card, you'd think he'd fight right in with Bertha Lewis and Herbert Daughtry!

But in the name of bringing all sides together, I have a big surprise! Mugabe is coming to your house! Tonight! It should be a laugh-riot.

escap · February 2007

raulism wrote: [quote=escap]On another note, I'm surprised that AY opponents have anything against Mugabe. As an ardent socialist, anti-corporate class warrior who loves to play the race card, you'd think he'd fight right in at DDDb! (hehe, i can't help the occasional low blow )

C'mon, escap, you can hit harder than that. You know, I'm surprised that AY proponents have anything against Mugabe. As an ardent socialist, anti-corporate class warrior who loves to play the race card, you'd think he'd fight right in with Bertha Lewis and Herbert Daughtry!

That's true, Acorn is definitely Mugabe-ism personified, and of course Mugabe is the world's foremost proponent of eminent domain!!

No argument there.

But in the name of bringing all sides together, I have a big surprise! Mugabe is coming to your house! Tonight! It should be a laugh-riot.

:?:

ratnerville4ever · February 2007

friendlypitbull wrote: I am struck by how ridiculous and self-defeating the AY opponents are. Now for disclosure, I am happy about this b/c I support AY. But surely there is someone who is associated with the opposition that must recongnize that jumping up and down in protest about EVERY single aspect of the project and demonizing Ratner and everyone associated with AY ends up totally muddling any legitimate complaints and opposition.

Personally I think Ratner must be thrilled with this current debate as it is a total distraction from any legitimate and real concerns circa 2007.

friendlypitbull, you should notice that it is Roger Green (the number 1 political supporter of the project after Bloomberg, Pataki, Marty), Rev. Daughtry a CBA signer, and Hakeem Jeffries, an on-the-fencer, who have expressed there concern about the naming rights and barclays' history.

The Barclay Arena [MERGED TOPIC]

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories