What's new
By:
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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

WeWantMore said:
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?
Click to expand...

The funny thing is, calling Obama the most antibusiness president in a generation isn't even saying anything. It boils down to: Obama is less friendly to business than Clinton was. Which may or may not be true. Either way, the claim is trivial almost to the point of irrelevance.

But it is a nice turn of phrase. Someone's high school debate coach is no doubt proud.
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

amherstblackbear said:
The funny thing is, calling Obama the most antibusiness president in a generation isn't even saying anything. It boils down to: Obama is less friendly to business than Clinton was. Which may or may not be true. Either way, the claim is trivial almost to the point of irrelevance.

But it is a nice turn of phrase. Someone's high school debate coach is no doubt proud.
Click to expand...

Right, I could agree that he is the least pro-business out of Clinton, W, and himself (the only presidents I've really been old enough to follow anything for). I still wouldn't call him anti-business in any regard though.
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

ScottM said:
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.
Click to expand...

The government is adding headcount. And their headcount never goes away.


edit:if he isn't anti-business, then nobody could be
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Old Pio said:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/09/14/living-soldier-awarded-militarys-highest-honor/

Say a little prayer tonight thanking God for Sergeant Giunta and all the brave men and women just like him serving in our military. It's folks like this who help make it possible for us to exchange opinions and insults here.

God bless them, every one.
Click to expand...

Thanks for sharing this. It is truly an incredible accomplishment to win a Medal of Honor. To live as a recipient doesn't happen every generation.
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

sagard said:
Thanks for sharing this. It is truly an incredible accomplishment to win a Medal of Honor. To live as a recipient doesn't happen every generation.
Click to expand...

Yup. "Heartbreak Ridge" is one of my favorite flicks. But the central premise, that there would be antagonism between an active duty, Medal of Honor winning top seargeant and his company commander is not credible. The company commander would think he'd died and gone to heaven, this is the Marine Corps we're talking abuout here, if a Medal of Honor winner was assigned to his outfit.

In the unlikely event the company commander didn't spend the better part of his days kissing the sergeant's azz, all the Medal of Honor winner would have to do is waltz into the base commander's office and inquire what it would take to get this shave tail off his five yard line. Done.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Old Pio said:
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?
Click to expand...

Seems, you can't tell me where I'm wrong...yet again.

Nobody on this board blathers on and on like you in an effort to say absolutely nothing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: XYZ
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

5mn_Major said:
Seems, you can't tell me where I'm wrong...yet again.

Nobody on this board blathers on and on like you in an effort to say absolutely nothing.
Click to expand...

Oh, so now I'M responsible for removing the scales from your eyes and the chit from your brains.

W.C. Fields had three maxims: You can't cheat an honest man. Never give a sucker an even break. And don't smarten up a chump. It's that last one that gives me pause insofar as educating you about how things work in the news business. It would be a waste of time. You don't know chit from shinola about it, and you're evidently proud of continuing to advertise that fact to one and all. However, your "feelings" and "intuitions" and "beliefs" don't give you any insight into how things really work.

As to my sometimes (usually?) too long posts--guilty. I'll leave it up to the other posters to decide who contributes more around here. Earlier, in some of those windy posts, I explained what I was talking about several times. Most everybody got it. You didn't. You are such a closed minded liberal you just can't believe that a conservative would know more about reporting and broadcasting "news" than you do and can't possibly have any experience that trumps your pathetic intellectualizing. You couched your analysis of my "we decide what the news is" post in terms of helping the GOP or something. And since these matters obsess you, you assume they obsess me.

Despite complete ignorance of my work, you have no difficulty implicitly suggesting I may be incapable of playing it straight. As I've said before, prejudice is an ugly thing, no matter who is expressing it or in what context.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Bakunin said:
Government ownership of companies and advocating the passing of cap and trade is pro-business...how?
Click to expand...

This is my point, Dude.

Government ownership - let's take GM. The Government will sell off their shares, and in the end will have bailed out a large company with a huge subsidy. So, maybe that's not free market, but you can easily make the case that it's pro-business. Just an adjusted bankruptcy, really.

It's funny how "pro-business" and "free market" are the same sometimes, but very different other times. Which is exactly why it would be nice for D'Souza to sharpen his definitions.

Cap and trade - let's assume we need to do something about carbon emissions - which is the more pro-business method: blind regulation from the EPA, or a market-based system that aims to set a price on carbon and trade emissions permits based on a market allocation of resources?

This is where the category breaks down, too. Wouldn't just letting them pollute be pro-business, too? I suppose, but that's not really an option. We could allow child labor in the US, too. That's very pro-business.
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

blockski said:
Government ownership - let's take GM. The Government will sell off their shares, and in the end will have bailed out a large company with a huge subsidy. So, maybe that's not free market, but you can easily make the case that it's pro-business.
Click to expand...
You can make that case, and you would be wrong to do so. Pro-business should be taken to mean that policies make it easier and cheaper to produce and sell goods and services for ALL businesses, not just a select few who are politically connected. This is why protectionist policies are not really pro-business; sure, they benefit inefficient domestic companies and allow them to sell at a higher price in American markets. However, they artificially block out foreign competitors by raising their prices via tariffs - and furthermore, they block out American companies in foreign markets for precisely the same reason as foreign governments levy retaliatory tariffs. In the GM case, they got a taxpayer handout to the tune of tens of billions of dollars. I'm sure their competitors would have loved to receive that kind of capital.
Cap and trade - let's assume we need to do something about carbon emissions - which is the more pro-business method: blind regulation from the EPA, or a market-based system that aims to set a price on carbon and trade emissions permits based on a market allocation of resources?
Click to expand...
I'll disregard the initial assumption as that assumption leads to policy decisions that raise the costs to any business that emits CO2 - which is clearly anti-business.
This is where the category breaks down, too. Wouldn't just letting them pollute be pro-business, too? I suppose, but that's not really an option.
Click to expand...
Sure it is. Just ask China.
 
  • Like
Reactions: XYZ
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Bakunin said:
You can make that case, and you would be wrong to do so. Pro-business should be taken to mean that policies make it easier and cheaper to produce and sell goods and services for ALL businesses, not just a select few who are politically connected.
Click to expand...

The auto bailouts pale in comparison to the aggregate amount we've spent subsidizing agribusiness. It's easy to say that politics shouldn't matter. . . just don't hold your breath.
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

amherstblackbear said:
The auto bailouts pale in comparison to the aggregate amount we've spent subsidizing agribusiness. It's easy to say that politics shouldn't matter. . . just don't hold your breath.
Click to expand...
Given the dire financial state of our country, one would think that these needless subsidies would be killed - and quickly. It amounts to little more than buying votes.
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Bakunin said:
Given the dire financial state of our country, one would think that these needless subsidies would be killed - and quickly. It amounts to little more than buying votes.
Click to expand...

If the mission is to prevent buying votes... there are another hundred programs we could eliminate.:)

Not you, per se, but most people only want to eliminate programs that buy votes from people in the opposite party.
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Rover said:
Did you just write that long posts irritate you? Hmmmmm....that gives me an idea. :D
Click to expand...

You're beyond irritating me. You are entertaining sometimes, irrelevant generally. Irritating? No.
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Bakunin said:
Government ownership of companies and advocating the passing of cap and trade is pro-business...how?
Click to expand...

Just shows how contorted peoples' understanding of economics is anymore. But these are the same people who advocate crippling our nation with staggering debt, just to dole out some pork and provide a little short term economic stimulation.
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Bakunin said:
Given the dire financial state of our country, one would think that these needless subsidies would be killed - and quickly. It amounts to little more than buying votes.
Click to expand...

And as long as it continues to buy votes, they'll keep doing it until enough of this country wakes up and says no to such nonsense. But, our nation is in such a heavy stupor that it's doubtful that'll happen before the nation is seriously impaired by such irresponsible financial policies.
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Bob Gray said:
And as long as it continues to buy votes, they'll keep doing it until enough of this country wakes up and says no to such nonsense. But, our nation is in such a heavy stupor that it's doubtful that'll happen before the nation is seriously impaired by such irresponsible financial policies.
Click to expand...

"The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money." -- Alexis de Tocqueville
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top