You should continue attempts at being fair; they’re appreciated, if not always successful. But this was started in The Pit, right? You were expecting no-holds-barred flames, cursing, and such directed at…what? Why not put it in the more constrained GD forum? Surely you didn’t think the fairly restrained tone/content of the OP was, on its own, harsh enough to require The Pit?
And if you really wanted to address the topic generally, without left- or right-leanings, it seems to me that your response to my first post would have been one of simple acceptance – a “Yes, that sucks also; here’s how I think we should address the issue…”
With that said, I will happily now take you at your word that you had no “nefarious intent”. You’ve presciently taken what would be my suggestions to get past all that – suggesting someone else for the position (for compare/contrast purposes) and proposing concrete regulations (well, one anyway) that might forestall the issue. Any others?
I’m interested in reading/posting more (and more substantive) material…so I’ll try to shut the hell up for now.
Screw that. I know what I meant when I started this thread, and I’m not going to let other people tell me what I was thinking. And I’ve had plenty of good things to say about Obama in the past. In fact, I started a thread praising him for his WSJ op-ed just a few days ago.
And please tell me how I framed the OP ideologically. I posted facts. GE has been one of the biggest beneficiaries of the stimulus. GE"s PAC is one of the top donors to Obama’s campaign. GE has a huge vested interest in seeing new regulations applied to factories, because they sell the equipment factories need to update if they’re forced to change their processes. GE has a big vested interest in government investment in ‘green’ technology, because GE is one of the world’s biggest suppliers of ‘green’ hardware. GE has also been trying to open markets in China. Last week, after trying for several years with no success, GE was awarded 2 billion in contracts in China, just before Hu came to town. Now GE’s CEO is helping to guide government policy, with a focus on ‘green’ investments.
If you can’t see the major conflicts of interest there, I don’t know what to say. And this isn’t ideological - I didn’t say that this was a foible unique to Democrats, or that Obama had a history of this, or anything else that could be described as targeting on side of the debate. And in fact I said the same things when Bush caved to the steel industry, agribusiness, and when a major aerospace company was given special treatment by Bush and the Republicans in congress in being awarded a contract for air transport over better qualified competitors.
To some people, I guess any mention of anything negative that happens to be associated with Obama MUST be politically motivated. Perhaps the partisan knee-jerking is on their side, hmm?
I guess that’s why a search for Sam Stone and “crony capitalism” came up with the post Kimstu linked to earlier…and a few posts from 2010 onward. You never accused Bush of “crony capitalism”, not even once.
I put this in the pit because I was pissed about it, and I thought other people would be too.
Your first post didn’t ask any questions - you simply aired your suspicion that I was being partisan.
I think the main one is that government and business should be kept at arm’s length, and that the potential for collusion for the benefit of a company at the expense of the citizenry at large is even greater when businesses collude with government than it is when they collude between themselves. Anyone acting in an official capacity in the government should be recused from operational control of a company and should not have financial interest in the company being regulated.
I can’t remember if the sitting CEO of a large corporation has held a high-level position in the government like this. My memory may just be failing me and it’s happened many times, but I can’t remember one. Can anyone else? At the very least, it seems like a good place to start would be to not allow actual current CEOs to also serve as advisers to a President.
It’s entirely possible that I never used that term. Why don’t you search for “Sam Stone” and “steel tariffs”, or “agribusiness” or “Boeing”, or “Monsanto”? I’m pretty sure you’ll find plenty.
The other possibility is that the board’s search is broken. I can’t do vanity searches on my own name, probably because “Sam” is three letters and gets filtered out or something. Any time I search of anything with my name in it, the only hits I get stop around 2004.
And as for your other suggested search terms–for example, “steel tariffs”: about 2/3rds of your posts talk about how you’re such a tough talker when it comes to rapping Bush and his colleagues on tariffs, and the other third is well, like this one:
“The Republicans are bad, but the Democrats are worse”…that’s your claim of nonpartisanship?
Bullshit. This is exactly what’s wrong with US Politics. Everyone is focused on winning elections instead of governing. Governance and electioneering are two different things and somehow people have this idea that success in one justifies any action one wants to take in another. Those few politicians who focus on good governance once they’re in office take so much heat for it they tend to lose. Hard decisions don’t get made, and all that happens is the can gets kicked further down the road.
Let me be blunt. Democracy sucks. Pure, direct democracy(everyone votes on everything) is clearly impossible. Representative democracy sucks worse than pure democracy because it takes the immediate power out of the hands of the people and puts it in the hands of individuals who may or may not use it in accordance with the will of the people. The whole system is only slightly better than strange women lying in ponds distributing swords.
I can see a reasonable argument that elections are the only remedy we have which is guaranteed to work, but to advocate only elections as remedies instead of petitioning the government and making our will known during a representative’s term perpetuates the focus on electioneering over governing. And even if we do throw the bums out, as happened in the house in 2010, the new bums can’t get shit done because the previous bums already entrenched it into the system. Having representatives which are conscientious governors and in a good two-way dialog with the electorate throughout their entire term is the best choice. The only time I ever see my rep is when the bastard wants me to vote for him. He spends a year sucking up to me and a year dicking me over. That’s bullshit.
I never claimed to be completely non-partisan. Obviously I prefer Republicans to Democrats overall. My claim is that I have been equally willing to criticize Republicans on this issue. It appears that you found quotes which back this up.
But hey, you believe whatever you want. In the meantime, the facts as I’ve outlined them in this thread stand on their own. If you want to ignore them because you don’t like the person who posted them, fine.
In the OP of this thread, you ripped the Democrats and said nothing about the Republicans. Then later you claimed that you said “the same things” about Bush’s handling of steel tariffs (as one example). Well, no, you didn’t at all: you made sure that the Democrats were attacked more than Bush, even as you gave no example of why that attack was needed.
In other words, bull on your claims of even-handedness.
Well then get a fucking spine mate, because your cry baby act about Ad Hominem all the bloody time is seriously boring. Boring.
I ain’t going to bother with the rest given this reaction. Jaysus.
In any case, ignoring the cry baby partisan, I remain utterly unconvinced that such things are in fact crony capitalism, whether done by a conservative party or by a centre left party.
It was probably unwise to use the term “crony capitalism” in this context. I don’t think the GE CEO is a “crony” of Obama’s.
However, I agree that having an active CEO of a corporation as an adviser to the president is not what I want to see. And if the president needs an adviser on how to get the economy to create more jobs, I can’t see that GE’s CEO is the guy for the job. Should be someone with a history of starting or running small to medium sized companies, preferably in the tech industry. That’s where the job growth is.
But where could he find such a person, John?. It would have to be someone consistently…nay, relentlessly!..non-partisan! And of adequate moral fiber to resist the luxury, cash, and ravenously horny fiscal policy groupies that roam Washington like packs of feral sluts.
Now, I certainly qualify as to moral fiber and stern incorruptibility, but cannot expect to pass the “non-partisan” test, being a teensy bit left of center. So I’m out.
I don’t think being non-partisan is important. My issue is that he or she shouldn’t be running a big company now, and hence have a conflict of interest, and he or she should have a background in the sort of businesses that are in the practice of creating new jobs. This guy doesn’t fit either of those criteria.
But like I said in my first post in this thread… I see this more as a pro forma act by Obama to make it look like he’s concentrating on
“creating jobs” and that he’s not the anti-business president that many are calling him.
Would you then agree that it’s unusual for somebody who is supposedly speaking out against crony capitalism to choose the Obama administration as an exemplar of the problem?
So Obama chose a businessman as business advisor? I can’t work up too much outrage. Is corruption involved? I don’t know, but even if so, what will the headlines say: Obama deserts his Marxist baby-killing America-hating supporters in support of Wall Street or campaign donor!! ? Sounds like just another dog-bites-man story to me.
There’s only one aspect of this thread that interests me…
Now this would be a genuine man-bites-dog story. A supporter of Stupidism who argues against the stupidity of Stupidist leaders. (There was plenty of Stupidist criticism of Bush, but the charge was that his policies weren’t stupid enough.
Mr. Stone suggests search terms (though also complaining they won’t work ). I did some of the searches he suggests:
“steel tariffs”
Yep, searching is hard and it was someone else in the this thread who mentioned “steel tariffs.” Still I excerpt here to help Mr. Stone demonstrate his fair-handed and complimentary treatment of Obama.
Mr. Stone suggest agribusiness as a search term to demonstrate his dislike for Bush. The example Google found was posted during the Bush Administration when Congress was Democrat-led:
I searched for Stone posts containing both “Bush” and “Boeing.” Three turned up. The one quoted above, one unrelated discussing NASA and one, from a thread titled “Pelosi’s Palatial Plane Preference: Piggishness or Republican Pablam?”, which fails to support his claim.
So I see no evidence for any man-bites-dog breaking news story.
Mr. Stone’s claim, to allow him to condemn Obama’s “crony capitalism” ( :dubious: ) without appearing hypocrite reminds me of columnist David Brooks, when he wanted to condemn those who accused Bush of prevaricating for the Trillion-Dollar Iraq Mistake. Brooks had devoted many column-inches of whining and pants-soiling about Clinton’s evil Monica-gate, but, with Bush under attack, wanted to retract and apologize for those whines.
I’ve got strike for our current show and auditions for the next one that weekend, but if some moistened bint lobs a scimitar at you I’ll clear my schedule.
). I did some of the searches he suggests:
:dubious: ) without appearing hypocrite reminds me of columnist David Brooks, when he wanted to condemn those who accused Bush of prevaricating for the Trillion-Dollar Iraq Mistake. Brooks had devoted many column-inches of whining and pants-soiling about Clinton’s evil Monica-gate, but, with Bush under attack, wanted to retract and apologize for those whines. 