Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Reading this thread, the references of comparisons are to politicians, not geography or economics. People suggesting that the upstate and Charleston being able to have this as a done deal are references to the collaborative efforts and political abilities of the two regions. That's why SWA is being brought up. It was cited that this lacked in Columbia, not the economics. And it's obviously true, that's why major steps have been attempted in the midlands to form a collaborative and inclusive representative body for the region.
Certainly. I will restate, then, my opinion that the problems with the amazon deal have to do with State, not local, politics. Perhaps a more unified front of boosterism from a particular area would help push the deal along in another part of the state, but I'd imagine that those core issues would remain.
It seems to me that the real threat of the Amazon deal would be posed not to local business, who could never compete on price anyway, but to major national chains. This battle, then, doesn't have a whole awful lot to do with Lexington County or Columbia, specifically. The issues would remain regardless of where in the state the center were slated to open, would they not?
But coming in and reading this, it's not hard for me to see that individuals are making statements/guesses/dialogue about a current affair in the state.
And those statements/guesses/dialogue were uninformed and ill-informed, which is why they were being corrected. That shouldn't have been hard for you to see either, unless you are uninformed or ill-informed about the issue as well.
Quote:
Instead of promoting discussion and intelligent responses of agreement or differing opinion with reasoning, the only responses are very defensive attempts to "get even".
I and others gave factual information, or "differing opinion with reasoning" as you put it, about this deal and why it's in jeopardy. I'm sorry if you consider that a "defensive attempt at getting even" when the facts are brought forth. But I will note that you nor anyone else had a rebuttal to the factual information that's already been given. Such "defensive attempts" are typically refuted pretty easily, so I'm wondering why this hasn't been done yet. Is it due to unwillingness or inability? I'm betting on the latter. Otherwise, taken to its logical end, one would end up saying some extremely silly and illogical things about the inability of the Dallas-Fort Worth region to get things done when it comes to business ventures when compared to two metropolitan areas that are only one-tenth its size (and I'm referring to Charleston and Greenville, just in case you didn't get that reference).
Quote:
Not having been a part of the discussion, it's easy for me to read over this and follow what people are saying. Somehow though, many of the points are being misconstrued and taken with offense (which I can't understand when I read through it and get an entirely different understanding of one's comments). THAT'S where I can only assume that sensitivity must be to blame when most things seem fairly straight forward. Disagree if one disagrees, but some of this is ridiculous...
Well, you said it yourself: you weren't part of the discussion early on. So it appears that you did not read the responses where the factual information was given about this deal as well as what's going on in other states with Amazon. Nothing was being misconstrued; some people were just flat-out wrong in their assessments and they were promptly corrected. So I agree, it's ridiculous when one puts forth statements/guesses that are not backed up by facts. Again, I'm sorry if you consider that "sensitive," but I'd think that being informed about the issue would be paramount first and foremost. Frankly, I resent the implication, but judging from this response and some of the other discussions I see in this forum, there seems to be something afoot between certain folks from Greenville and Columbia that I'm obviously unaware of (and really want no part of). Otherwise, your entire reply is a bit senseless and mind-boggling to be perfectly honest with you. It certainly doesn't come across as someone attempting to be the unbiased arbiter of objectivity, that's for sure.
Last edited by Palmetto_Guy; 04-18-2011 at 07:29 PM..
The bottom line on this is going to be does SC renege or not? If we do, our name will be mud to the business world with a reputation of not doing what we say we're going to do. The business world doesn't care that we have new governor since Sanford made the promise.
And those statements/guesses/dialogue were uninformed and ill-informed, which is why they were being corrected. That shouldn't have been hard for you to see either, unless you are uninformed or ill-informed about the issue as well.
I and others gave factual information, or "differing opinion with reasoning" as you put it, about this deal and why it's in jeopardy. I'm sorry if you consider that a "defensive attempt at getting even" when the facts are brought forth. But I will note that you nor anyone else had a rebuttal to the factual information that's already been given. Such "defensive attempts" are typically refuted pretty easily, so I'm wondering why this hasn't been done yet. Is it due to unwillingness or inability? I'm betting on the latter. Otherwise, taken to its logical end, one would end up saying some extremely silly and illogical things about the inability of the Dallas-Fort Worth region to get things done when it comes to business ventures when compared to two metropolitan areas that are only one-tenth its size (and I'm referring to Charleston and Greenville, just in case you didn't get that reference).
Well, you said it yourself: you weren't part of the discussion early on. So it appears that you did not read the responses where the factual information was given about this deal as well as what's going on in other states with Amazon. Nothing was being misconstrued; some people were just flat-out wrong in their assessments and they were promptly corrected. So I agree, it's ridiculous when one puts forth statements/guesses that are not backed up by facts. Again, I'm sorry if you consider that "sensitive," but I'd think that being informed about the issue would be paramount first and foremost. Frankly, I resent the implication, but judging from this response and some of the other discussions I see in this forum, there seems to be something afoot between certain folks from Greenville and Columbia that I'm obviously unaware of (and really want no part of). Otherwise, your entire reply is a bit senseless and mind-boggling to be perfectly honest with you. It certainly doesn't come across as someone attempting to be the unbiased arbiter of objectivity, that's for sure.
Wow.
I criticized the referencing of Charlotte and Southwest Airlines in this topic. You responded, and I tried to clear it up that I thought sensitivity was clouding those who brought up such irrelevant topics on both sides. I was never referring to you, but you sure have taken this to heart and come back swinging. I'll chalk it up to a bad day, and carry on. Don't have anything against you
What a freakin joke: Baptists oppose Amazon tax break - Local / Metro - TheState.com (http://www.thestate.com/2011/04/22/1788340/baptists-target-proposed-amazon.html - broken link) Don't these church goers have anything better to do during their spare time?
here's a thought for all the groups opposed: are you going to pool together and offer the 1200+ jobs? If so then great, this is settled! But if not, let this run it's course. ( sorry for any sarcasm ).
As for the latest opposition, if Amazon isnt going to ship unrated movies out of the plant then their site is no different then any other that can be accessed so that argument doesnt seem to hold up.
I believe everyone can have their opinion but we need to be taking care of the people who need jobs first and foremost...
What a freakin joke: Baptists oppose Amazon tax break - Local / Metro - TheState.com (http://www.thestate.com/2011/04/22/1788340/baptists-target-proposed-amazon.html - broken link) Don't these church goers have anything better to do during their spare time?
here's a thought for all the groups opposed: are you going to pool together and offer the 1200+ jobs? If so then great, this is settled! But if not, let this run it's course. ( sorry for any sarcasm ).
As for the latest opposition, if Amazon isnt going to ship unrated movies out of the plant then their site is no different then any other that can be accessed so that argument doesnt seem to hold up.
I believe everyone can have their opinion but we need to be taking care of the people who need jobs first and foremost...
my .02
Well said.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
