Rush: "I hope Obama fails"

[jimotis4heisman]

The Columbus Dispatch - News

NEW YORK (AP) -- Jon Stewart hammered Jim Cramer and his network, CNBC, in their anticipated face-off on "The Daily Show," repeatedly chastising the "Mad Money" host for putting entertainment above journalism.
"I understand that you want to make finance entertaining, but it's not a ... game," Stewart told Cramer, adding in an expletive during the show's Thursday taping. The episode was scheduled to air at 11 p.m. EDT on Comedy Central.
It was perhaps the hardest lashing Stewart has given to a TV commentator since 2004 when he called Tucker Carlson and his then co-host Paul Begala "partisan hacks" on CNN's "Crossfire," the since canceled political commentary program.
The program opened in mock hype of the confrontation, which caught headlines through the week as each snipped at the other over the air. The show announced it as "the weeklong feud of the century."
In his opening, Stewart announced that it was "go time." He played a video clip of Cramer's Thursday guest appearance on "The Martha Stewart Show" in which Cramer beat a mound of dough, pretending it was Stewart.

continued...

[cincibuck]

"Presuming that business is any thing close to the meritocracy it purports itself to be,"

Originally Posted by stxbuck

The pure market IS a meritocracy-your firm survives and thrives and weathers storms and grows, or it winds up on the scrap heap....as for individual "business" firms and companies being pure meritocracies-please, I know you are much more intelligent than that.............

In a pure market? Isn't that just what I said? Without a pure market there can't be a pure meritocracy. There are elements of meritocracy within the business community and there are elements of a "pure market" within the current market, but only elements.

As I understand this part of the thread, the contention of those in this discussion who are most ardent in their fears of a goverment take over of the private sector is that the leaders, the most influential people, in the financial and manufacturing communities are presumed to have acquired their position through merit. That merit is presumed to be the product of hard work, knowledge, adaptability, the consistent application of known methods and a track record of outperforming others in your peer group.

The same people presume that there are no elements of meritocracy within government and that the worst thing that could happen right now would be for government to step in and start telling businesses how to operate.

Given the level of incompetence, arrogance, greed, mismanagement and the consistent applications of methods contrary to sound business we have seen from the private sector, I have to wonder how government could get it any worse. (Please note the use of the sarcasm font!)

[stxbuck]

Originally Posted by cincibuck

"Presuming that business is any thing close to the meritocracy it purports itself to be,"



In a pure market? Isn't that just what I said? Without a pure market there can't be a pure meritocracy. There are elements of meritocracy within the business community and there are elements of a "pure market" within the current market, but only elements.

As I understand this part of the thread, the contention of those in this discussion who are most ardent in their fears of a goverment take over of the private sector is that the leaders, the most influential people, in the financial and manufacturing communities are presumed to have acquired their position through merit. That merit is presumed to be the product of hard work, knowledge, adaptability, the consistent application of known methods and a track record of outperforming others in your peer group.

The same people presume that there are no elements of meritocracy within government and that the worst thing that could happen right now would be for government to step in and start telling businesses how to operate.

Given the level of incompetence, arrogance, greed, mismanagement and the consistent applications of methods contrary to sound business we have seen from the private sector, I have to wonder how government could get it any worse. (Please note the use of the sarcasm font!)

I am not talking about meritocracy as it regards to regarding people climbing the corporate ladder, I am talking pure, Darwinian "invisible hand", boom/bust market forces that affect everyone, whether we like it or not. Investment banks going belly up b/c they made moronic investments in putrid mortgages they really didn't understand, and people making millions off of things like the Shamwow or The Garbage Pail Kids are all part of the same giant wheel. Bailing out failing companies b/c they are "too big to fail", or socializing everything in sight-these are both futile attempts to control human nature.

[jimotis4heisman]

The Associated Press: White House: Cheney almost as popular as Limbaugh

WASHINGTON (AP) — The White House says former Vice President Dick Cheney is the second most popular member of the "Republican cabal," behind only talk-show host Rush Limbaugh.
White House spokesman Robert Gibbs on Monday brushed off Cheney's criticism of President Barack Obama's new administration. Cheney said Sunday that Obama's decisions are threatening the nation's safety.
Obama reversed many of his predecessor's executive orders, including how the country treats suspected terrorists.
Gibbs says Obama is keeping the nation safe and dealing with problems George W. Bush's administration did not.
Gibbs says his sarcasm shouldn't mask serious policy differences between Obama and the Bush-Cheney team.

[MaxBuck]

-- CBS News -- In first post-White House speech, Bush avoids criticizing Obama: "I'm not going to spend my time criticizing him. There are plenty of critics in the arena. ... He deserves my silence," former president George W. Bush said to a paying audience in Calgary. "Bush declined to critique the Obama administration in his first speech since leaving office in January. Former vice president Dick Cheney has said that Obama's decisions threatened America's safety."

W illustrates that, though his performance as POTUS can be roundly criticized, his performance as a human being is exemplary.

I've long said Bush is a much better man than he was a President, as could be said of Jimmy Carter. Ultimately, I'd rather have a good President in the White House than a good man.

Bill Clinton is a bad, bad man.

[DaytonBuck]

I like how Jim Clyburn can say back in 2007 that good news in Iraq is bad new for Democrats but that's ok and it's not a big deal