USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage
- Thread starter ScottM
- Start date
- Status
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage
But you aren't listening to blockski. By definition Obama can't be anti-business. He just hasn't been able to communicate how pro-business he is and everyone who sees him as anti-business is by definition wrong and just doesn't understand. See how easy that is to set your thinking straight.
But you aren't listening to blockski. By definition Obama can't be anti-business. He just hasn't been able to communicate how pro-business he is and everyone who sees him as anti-business is by definition wrong and just doesn't understand. See how easy that is to set your thinking straight.
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage
The trouble with BHO is this is the 1st time he has sat in the Big Chair and is responsible. Before he was part of the group. Some people are born leaders, others are born followers. Methinks he's in the latter group.
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage
Jesus, did you not read what I wrote? I said my argument about his communication is independent of his popularity.
I judge his communication and narrative based on his actual communications - not based on his poll numbers. Which is exactly what I meant when I wrote that "my assessment of his communication issues is independent of any popularity issues."
And that "no" in my post wasn't a no, it isn't possible - rather a no, I don't think that's the cause. The assertion that people don't like his policies, therefore he's anti-business is simply false.
Presidential approval ratings are largely linked to the unemployment rate, anyway. The communication issues are more about legislating than anything else.
Jesus, did you not read what I wrote? I said my argument about his communication is independent of his popularity.
I judge his communication and narrative based on his actual communications - not based on his poll numbers. Which is exactly what I meant when I wrote that "my assessment of his communication issues is independent of any popularity issues."
And that "no" in my post wasn't a no, it isn't possible - rather a no, I don't think that's the cause. The assertion that people don't like his policies, therefore he's anti-business is simply false.
Presidential approval ratings are largely linked to the unemployment rate, anyway. The communication issues are more about legislating than anything else.
Last edited:
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage
But, as we saw in the Clinton era, sometimes basic definitions and grammar apparently don't apply.
He asked you the question "have you ever considered". You said no. Really pretty simple to interpret that one.
But, as we saw in the Clinton era, sometimes basic definitions and grammar apparently don't apply.
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage
Here's the thing - define "anti-business" for me. And let's then couch any of Obama's positions in terms of the real trade-offs with other ranking factors.
Was TARP anti-business? What about the public-option-less healthcare bill?
That's the whole problem with D'Souza's critique - ask different people about their opinion on, say, healthcare and you'll get some claiming it's anti-business and some claiming that it's a corporatist give-away.
The idea that there is some objective definition of pro or anti "business" out there is a false one right on its face - and that's what D'Souza's whole piece is based on.
Here's the thing - define "anti-business" for me. And let's then couch any of Obama's positions in terms of the real trade-offs with other ranking factors.
Was TARP anti-business? What about the public-option-less healthcare bill?
That's the whole problem with D'Souza's critique - ask different people about their opinion on, say, healthcare and you'll get some claiming it's anti-business and some claiming that it's a corporatist give-away.
The idea that there is some objective definition of pro or anti "business" out there is a false one right on its face - and that's what D'Souza's whole piece is based on.
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage
Spare me the sanctimony. I know Krauthammer, ok? He's an idiot. That I disagree with him isn't even to my credit. That would be like beating my chest over the fact that I don't sit around the house all day watching Jerry Springer reruns.
There are plenty of people with whom I seriously disagree. They have integrity. It's just that the folks whose editorials stir up controversy, who sell politics books in shopping mall bookstores, who use politics and controversy for personal gain, tend not to be those people.
Spare me the sanctimony. I know Krauthammer, ok? He's an idiot. That I disagree with him isn't even to my credit. That would be like beating my chest over the fact that I don't sit around the house all day watching Jerry Springer reruns.
There are plenty of people with whom I seriously disagree. They have integrity. It's just that the folks whose editorials stir up controversy, who sell politics books in shopping mall bookstores, who use politics and controversy for personal gain, tend not to be those people.
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage
I'm going to try and stop short of diagramming the sentences...
MinnFan asserts that Obama has a) communicated as well as he can, and b) as a result of that communication, the people do not like his ideas.
I'm asserting that a) he has not communicated as well as he can, and b) MinnFan's point about his ideas is irrelevant to the question of communication.
In short, he asked if I had considered a scenario with two clauses dependent on each other, and I reject that scenario because I reject the dependency MinnFan is asserting.
Could I have written that a little better? Sure.
I'm going to try and stop short of diagramming the sentences...
MinnFan asserts that Obama has a) communicated as well as he can, and b) as a result of that communication, the people do not like his ideas.
I'm asserting that a) he has not communicated as well as he can, and b) MinnFan's point about his ideas is irrelevant to the question of communication.
In short, he asked if I had considered a scenario with two clauses dependent on each other, and I reject that scenario because I reject the dependency MinnFan is asserting.
Could I have written that a little better? Sure.
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage
I don't care if he sells a book at a shopping mall bookstore or whatever (though I'd question if a lot of other commentors could even write a coherent book, so maybe that's a net positive for him). The guy strings together coherent arguments on issues, which is a lot more than I get from a lot of others. Sometimes I agree with him, sometimes not, but he's a better read than a lot of others.
Spare me the sanctimony. I know Krauthammer, ok? He's an idiot. That I disagree with him isn't even to my credit. That would be like beating my chest over the fact that I don't sit around the house all day watching Jerry Springer reruns.
There are plenty of people with whom I seriously disagree. They have integrity. It's just that the folks whose editorials stir up controversy, who sell politics books in shopping mall bookstores, who use politics and controversy for personal gain, tend not to be those people.
I don't care if he sells a book at a shopping mall bookstore or whatever (though I'd question if a lot of other commentors could even write a coherent book, so maybe that's a net positive for him). The guy strings together coherent arguments on issues, which is a lot more than I get from a lot of others. Sometimes I agree with him, sometimes not, but he's a better read than a lot of others.
ScottM
**** it feels good to be a bankster
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage
It's of little consequence whether Obama is really "anti-business" or not, whatever it may mean. That perception has taken hold in many executive suites across the nation, if not the globe. Obama is generally not trusted by bigshots who make the decisions. (Just ask Jamie Dimon.) Whatever benefits "business" may or may see from any Obama program are outweighed by the constant excoriation of business, banking, executives, etc. by him and his flunkies. That perception creates uncertainty, and uncertainty does not lend itself to lending, spending or investing. Let alone adding headcount.
It's of little consequence whether Obama is really "anti-business" or not, whatever it may mean. That perception has taken hold in many executive suites across the nation, if not the globe. Obama is generally not trusted by bigshots who make the decisions. (Just ask Jamie Dimon.) Whatever benefits "business" may or may see from any Obama program are outweighed by the constant excoriation of business, banking, executives, etc. by him and his flunkies. That perception creates uncertainty, and uncertainty does not lend itself to lending, spending or investing. Let alone adding headcount.
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage
Now, this is a critique I think is spot on. Perception is reality, and this is where Obama's narrative has failed him. His rhetoric has waffled from pro-business to populist, never quite staking out some definitive turf or definitively explaining the goals and directions of the policies he'd like to see.
That said, I find the criticisms from the CEOs and other business types to be completely unconvincing.
My personal opinion is that Obama hasn't been selling his ideas as if he were on the campaign trail. He clearly has the ability to do so, as he sold himself quite well - but was conspicuously absent from the healthcare debate until the last minute and has let his opponents define him on a number of policy grounds that have left him a little boxed in.
Now, this is a critique I think is spot on. Perception is reality, and this is where Obama's narrative has failed him. His rhetoric has waffled from pro-business to populist, never quite staking out some definitive turf or definitively explaining the goals and directions of the policies he'd like to see.
That said, I find the criticisms from the CEOs and other business types to be completely unconvincing.
My personal opinion is that Obama hasn't been selling his ideas as if he were on the campaign trail. He clearly has the ability to do so, as he sold himself quite well - but was conspicuously absent from the healthcare debate until the last minute and has let his opponents define him on a number of policy grounds that have left him a little boxed in.
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage
Did you just write that long posts irritate you? Hmmmmm....that gives me an idea.
Did you just write that long posts irritate you? Hmmmmm....that gives me an idea.
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage
And I feel that how he sells his policies is inconsequential because they are simply bad ideas. His popularity has always been higher than the approval ratings of his various policy stands. It was simply a matter of time until things caught up with him. You know what they say about polishing a turd ...
And I feel that how he sells his policies is inconsequential because they are simply bad ideas. His popularity has always been higher than the approval ratings of his various policy stands. It was simply a matter of time until things caught up with him. You know what they say about polishing a turd ...
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage
It may be inconsequential to you, but it's not inconsequential to the large number of people who are to the left of you and less convinced that they are simply bad ideas.
It may be inconsequential to you, but it's not inconsequential to the large number of people who are to the left of you and less convinced that they are simply bad ideas.
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage
Other posters are evidently as ignorant and pompous as you are. Your sophomoric putdowns, especially the ones suffused with terminal ignorance, are boring.
Before you share with us again your views on how "news" works and how "news" is supposed to work, why don't you spend one day in a newsroom? Assuming that they wouldn't throw you and your moronic coffee house theories out on your azz, you might actually learn something.
Intellectual dishonesty, combined with contemptuous ignorance, makes for a bad combination. But you keep telling us how the news business works, hear?
Other posters are evidently as ignorant and pompous as you are. Your sophomoric putdowns, especially the ones suffused with terminal ignorance, are boring.
Before you share with us again your views on how "news" works and how "news" is supposed to work, why don't you spend one day in a newsroom? Assuming that they wouldn't throw you and your moronic coffee house theories out on your azz, you might actually learn something.
Intellectual dishonesty, combined with contemptuous ignorance, makes for a bad combination. But you keep telling us how the news business works, hear?
Last edited:
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage
That's the thing - I'm not saying he's a poor writer. Twenty years ago, Krauthammer made a name for himself taking the ideas and arguments of others and repackaging them in simpler, easier-to-digest form. He was able to do that precisely *because* he is a good writer. There's nothing wrong with that, and I'd probably agree that it makes a productive contribution to society - or at least to political debate.
It also got the guy a lot of attention. And somewhere along the way, he mistook himself for the smart and knowledgeable folks on whose work he'd always depended. He's manifestly not an idiot - that was a poor choice of words on my part. Charlatan is closer to the truth. He has no particular expertise other than in developing rhetoric for consumption by a specific market. There's nothing wrong with that, either. I don't begrudge Hannity or Ed Schultz their chosen careers. But they don't cloak themselves behind unearned qualifications or present themselves as anything other than what they are.
The guy doesn't annoy me because he's conservative. He annoys me because he puts the "con" in conservative. I don't know what your field is, so let's say it's energy policy. I'm guessing you would be annoyed if some hack who once published a review of renewable energy strategy in the Atlantic Monthly parlayed that into a reputation for expertise in the field, and became a go-to TV personality - not because of any scientific or engineering knowledge but because he knows what, say, NBC viewers want to hear. A guy with a reputation for expertise but who lacks any specialized knowledge and who routinely makes egregious factual errors without being called out for them. I'm guessing your patience for that guy would be on par with mine for CK.
D'Souza I know less about. He's spent the last few years on the margins of political relevance - not quite an opinion leader, not quite a nobody. With this latest piece, though, it looks for all the world as if he's finally stumbled upon the one singular truth of political commentary: it's better to be wrong than to be ignored.
That's the thing - I'm not saying he's a poor writer. Twenty years ago, Krauthammer made a name for himself taking the ideas and arguments of others and repackaging them in simpler, easier-to-digest form. He was able to do that precisely *because* he is a good writer. There's nothing wrong with that, and I'd probably agree that it makes a productive contribution to society - or at least to political debate.
It also got the guy a lot of attention. And somewhere along the way, he mistook himself for the smart and knowledgeable folks on whose work he'd always depended. He's manifestly not an idiot - that was a poor choice of words on my part. Charlatan is closer to the truth. He has no particular expertise other than in developing rhetoric for consumption by a specific market. There's nothing wrong with that, either. I don't begrudge Hannity or Ed Schultz their chosen careers. But they don't cloak themselves behind unearned qualifications or present themselves as anything other than what they are.
The guy doesn't annoy me because he's conservative. He annoys me because he puts the "con" in conservative. I don't know what your field is, so let's say it's energy policy. I'm guessing you would be annoyed if some hack who once published a review of renewable energy strategy in the Atlantic Monthly parlayed that into a reputation for expertise in the field, and became a go-to TV personality - not because of any scientific or engineering knowledge but because he knows what, say, NBC viewers want to hear. A guy with a reputation for expertise but who lacks any specialized knowledge and who routinely makes egregious factual errors without being called out for them. I'm guessing your patience for that guy would be on par with mine for CK.
D'Souza I know less about. He's spent the last few years on the margins of political relevance - not quite an opinion leader, not quite a nobody. With this latest piece, though, it looks for all the world as if he's finally stumbled upon the one singular truth of political commentary: it's better to be wrong than to be ignored.
WeWantMore
New member
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage
Well, it's an opinion piece. I'm not so sure he's claiming to be objective, or even to have an objective definition.
By D'Souza's criteria (right or wrong as they may be), he's been the most anti-business in a generation. Now, is anyone going to refute that with a specific example?
Well, it's an opinion piece. I'm not so sure he's claiming to be objective, or even to have an objective definition.
By D'Souza's criteria (right or wrong as they may be), he's been the most anti-business in a generation. Now, is anyone going to refute that with a specific example?
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage
As D'Souza cited in the article itself, passing health care reform that forced everyone in the country to buy private health insurance is pretty pro-business. D'Souza didn't actually provide many or any examples of how he is specifically anti-business. (I guess the one major example was energy policy)
As D'Souza cited in the article itself, passing health care reform that forced everyone in the country to buy private health insurance is pretty pro-business. D'Souza didn't actually provide many or any examples of how he is specifically anti-business. (I guess the one major example was energy policy)
WeWantMore
New member
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage
Yeah, I don't think he does a very good (or even adequate) job of his arguing his point. Again though, if you disagree with his main assertion, don't you have to provide someone else as the most anti-business?
Yeah, I don't think he does a very good (or even adequate) job of his arguing his point. Again though, if you disagree with his main assertion, don't you have to provide someone else as the most anti-business?
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage
D'Souza has been quite a name in the blogosphere for the last 5 or so years. The article is his main shtick -- ensure you appeal to your core audience by predetermining the verdict. Anybody who starts with that methodology can "prove" anything. Aquinas, next to whom D'Souza looks like a grammar school dropout, perfected that polemical style and people on every side of every issue have been doing it ever since.
Obama Derangement Syndrome started among the oligarchs the day he announced and has never abated. Now he's threatening their sacred cow -- the sine qua non of modern conservative politics, and arguably its only real reason for existence -- an artificially-low top marginal tax rate, so the D'Souzas are going to be getting a lot more space in the righty marketplace of ideas than more independent thinkers. Carrying water for those paymasters is a very well-paying gig.
Remember the spurt of "analytical" arguments in favor of zeroing out the inheritance tax? Same people, same game.
D'Souza has been quite a name in the blogosphere for the last 5 or so years. The article is his main shtick -- ensure you appeal to your core audience by predetermining the verdict. Anybody who starts with that methodology can "prove" anything. Aquinas, next to whom D'Souza looks like a grammar school dropout, perfected that polemical style and people on every side of every issue have been doing it ever since.
Obama Derangement Syndrome started among the oligarchs the day he announced and has never abated. Now he's threatening their sacred cow -- the sine qua non of modern conservative politics, and arguably its only real reason for existence -- an artificially-low top marginal tax rate, so the D'Souzas are going to be getting a lot more space in the righty marketplace of ideas than more independent thinkers. Carrying water for those paymasters is a very well-paying gig.
Remember the spurt of "analytical" arguments in favor of zeroing out the inheritance tax? Same people, same game.
Last edited:
- Status