It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Venezuela seizes a landmark Hilton Hotel

page: 2
3
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by kozmo
United States seizes a landmark automotive company
United States seizes landmark insurance company

Hmmmm... Chavez = Obama; Obama = Chavez. The similarities make me want to


Maybe that is why Chavez spoke out and said that Obama doesn't deserve the Nobel Peace Prize....because Chavez recognizes that he doesn't deserve it himself.




posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 01:21 PM
link   
Ah man, i used to like that guy when he just got president but since that time he really went of the deep end and started to go crazy (or crazier than is good for someone in his position). And now he's just major of crazytown.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by NovusOrdoMundi
 


Come on, Novus. I'm disappointed in you.


This is the Hilton's we're talking about. This event won't even make a dent in their checkbook. Forgive me for not feeling sorry for them.


You don't have to feel sorry for them but it would be nice to at least consider wrong 'wrong.' Confiscating private property just because the state wants it is flat out wrong. It doesn't matter if it is a struggling person who will lose their livelihood due to the seizure or a rich person who can afford the loss. Wrong is wrong.

Please let's not take the route that 'they're rich so oh well.' I don't like it when my own government does it and I don't like it when a foreign country does it. Or when it is a poor person or a rich person. Why? Because I consider wrong 'wrong' and a victim a 'victim' regardless of who they are.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 01:32 PM
link   
What if the U.S. took this approach? Especially towards China...seize their assets with no compensation...wars start over stuff like this.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 


There are degrees of 'wrong'. One instance can be perceived as more 'wrong' than another, even if the two are similar in nature.

For example, people generally believe killing another person is wrong. But what about in war? To most, killing the other guy is just fine, but the other guy killing our guy is wrong.

It's all hypocrisy no matter how you look at it.

That is the case here. Sure, it is 'wrong' of the Venezuelan government to seize private property. I never claimed otherwise. But this is a very low degree of 'wrong' compared to what happens in our own country to much less privileged people.

I find it disappointing that we sit here and condemn the Venezuelan government for seizing a hotel while lower and middle class people in this country have their homes, vehicles, and possessions seized for auction to pay for taxes that are illegally levied in the first place.

Where is our outrage there? Since 'wrong is wrong', does our government doing the same as a foreign enemy government make it any more right?



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 01:43 PM
link   
This is not the first time Ole chavie has done a take over; he has gone through all sorts of industries!
Every time the man needs something he takes over for a bit or all together in some instances and gets what he wants before giving the stuff (companies) back.
It has been going on for a VERY long time and is not going to stop anytime soon because NO ONE ever tries to stop him.
He has gotten away with this for far to long for him to even think of stopping. Perhaps it is time for all of those foreign companies to just pick up shop burn down the buildings and leave!



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 01:46 PM
link   
How about we seize the Embassy of Venezuela and give it to the Hiltons as compensation. It looks like it could be a nice hotel acquisition.


www.embavenez-us.org...



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by xoxo stacie
 


This sounds alot like another country I know of. I forget the name of it. I forget the name of the leader too. He promised something with change or what ever.

I guess the only difference is the "long time" part; it's a recent development in this country I'm referring to.

All I know is, it's a good thing people in that country are just as pissed off at their own government for it as they are at Venezuela. Otherwise, they would just be a bunch of hypocritical sheep.

Surely none of us want to be seen as that, now do we?



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by NovusOrdoMundi
 



I find it disappointing that we sit here and condemn the Venezuelan government for seizing a hotel while lower and middle class people in this country have their homes, vehicles, and possessions seized for auction to pay for taxes that are illegally levied in the first place.

Where is our outrage there? Since 'wrong is wrong', does our government doing the same as a foreign enemy government make it any more right?


I'm not sure what you mean (you might not live on ATS like I do
) but there have been tons of discussions about it- both seizures due to tax debts and the nationalization of private business.

From my observation, there has been a lot of outrage due to similar things occurring in the States so I do think it's fair we call a spade a spade when it comes to Chavez. It's not hypocrisy when you call out everyone. It's only hypocrisy when you don't. Or saying 'they're rich so oh well.' If we don't stand up for everyone, big and small, then our whole effort if pointless.

[edit on 10/14/2009 by AshleyD]



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Aggie Man
 


Too bad that would be a declaration of war.

I guess I see your point though. We start war over oil, why not a hotel? Seems logical to me.

[edit on 10/14/09 by NovusOrdoMundi]



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 


Just curious, have the Hilton's stood up for lower and middle class Americans who have had their homes seized by their government?

No? Then why should I stand up for them?

Now they know how it feels.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundi
reply to post by AshleyD
 


Just curious, have the Hilton's stood up for lower and middle class Americans who have had their homes seized by their government?

No? Then why should I stand up for them?

Now they know how it feels.


I see this as an act of aggression towards the US, not towards the Hiltons. Sure the Hiltons would benefit from the US government taking a stand against this. BUT, the Hiltons benefit would only be a side effect.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 02:02 PM
link   
The Major is a bit disappointed in the troops. The Hilton family has nothing to do with Hilton Hotels.



Hilton Hotels Sold for $26bn; Shareholders Go On Vacation

Blackstone has checked out of its penthouse suite and the room service bill is eye popping. Less than a week after its $4.1bn IPO, the private equity firm announced that it would purchase Hilton Hotels for $26bn, $6bn of which is debt. The move cedes control of one of the world's largest hotel chains to private equity, and gives Blackstone its choice of 600,000 hotel rooms worldwide. For Hilton shareholders, the buyout offers a hefty 32% premium over the week's earlier close. With Hilton shares trending upward, did the company make a good decision in handing the keys over to someone else?

www.investorguide.com...


Hilton was a publicly traded company before that, meaning that the Hilton family ownership was a percentage of outstanding shares. Sadly, the Major knows that the recruits assembled are far more familiar with Paris Hilton and a particular type of "job" that she's not very good at vice the financial intricacies of one of the major players in the hospitality industry.

Dismissed.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 02:11 PM
link   
Chavez will eventually have the same problem as Allende.

Nations have "rules" they are supposed to abide by. Certain activities aren't "allowed."

Corporations though, have no such restraints.

They can hire the help, fund the effort, knock off a leader, recoup what is theirs, and without restrictions that limits governments.

Governments can lend non-participating assistance in these efforts, without blatantly violating international agreements.

Take the hunt for Pablo Escobar. A three-pronged hunt and attack. The government, the US military, and Los Pepes.

Agents of purpose.

Find people who want him dead, fund them, assist them, and it will eventually happen.

Corporations have great latitude. Cargill, Polar, Hilton, Verizon, AES, Cemex, Ternium Sidor, Techint, and many others can pool their resources and have a repeat of the fall of the Allende presidency.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by NovusOrdoMundi
 


Please see the post on the first page about how the Hilton's don't necessarily OWN it as well as the post from the member above me. As I'm trying to say, it's not about the Hiltons. And if it was, it would still be wrong. If it was 'a little guy,' it would still be wrong. If it was shareholders or a franchise, it would still be wrong.

A government, any government including my own, taking private property for no reason, is wrong. I don't care who the victim is or how much money they have or if they are active in certain fields. It's wrong.

It shouldn't be justified by saying they can afford it, or other countries do it, or they haven't done anything for us, etc.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Remixtup
welcome to a socialist dictatorship



were well on our way folks.


Seeing some variant of this in every single thread on every single website is starting to get really tired.

I don't know why you added those lol emoticons, there is absolutely not a drop of humor left to wring out from that anymore.

Leave that tired garbage on some trashier forum.


Originally posted by TrueAmerican
I didn't see anything about the corporations being reimbursed at all for this. And what about all those jobs, and the people that have put in their hard efforts to make that resort what it is? All down the toilet. BS.


Why hell no, of course you won't see that.

"Acquisition By Force" has nothing to do with " Paying A Consenting Seller."

That is the whole point; to gain from the Hilton by forcibly taking and owning it.

I don't see why that is surprising, if a burglar breaks in and takes you VCR, he isn't going to leave you $40.

[edit on 14-10-2009 by BaronVonGodzilla]



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by BaronVonGodzilla
 


Darn, and here I was, going to post a reply that stated, "The shape of things to come."

Doesn't matter in the long run though, we have all seen through history, what happens to dictators.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
The truth is that the best way to curb the Globalist Elite’s take over of the world and a New World Order is to prohibit the Globalists from profiting, owning, controlling and running things on a Global Scale.



The "THINGS this "globalist elite company" runs are HOTELS!

Why would any government think a hotel chain could "take over of the world and a New World Order."

It's a fancy/expensive hotel chain, that's all it is!

(Never realized that The Hilton Hotel was trying to "take over the world", I just thought they ran upscale hotels and catered to people who wanted their stay at a hotel to be pleasant and memorable.)



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 02:25 PM
link   
Like always there is more to the story than has been stated here.


Locals own it and have unsettled issues with regulators


The hotel, however, is owned by two local companies that have already come under the control of the government's financial regulator after facing troubles with the government's financial oversight body.


Owner sof seized companie san dproperties normally are compensated fairly.


The negotiations with foreign-owned companies have at times been prolonged, but in some cases the owners have walked away satisfied with the results, while others have had to resort to international arbitration.


Hilton corp has no ownership. They only manage the place.


For Hilton, the main risk is losing its management fee for operating the resort, something that happened when its hotel in Caracas was nationalized a few years back.


Wall Street Journal



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by ladyinwaiting
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


It will be interesting to see what the hotel owners (the Hilton's?) have to say about this.



the "hiltons" do not own it, nor any other american. it is owned by a local owner Inversiones Pueblamar. it is managed by hilton only
it sounds like this company is in some sort of legal trouble...there are court documents insinuating such. but i'm not going to sign up or pay money for those court documents.

[edit on 14-10-2009 by jimmyx]



new topics




 
3
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join