The Media Industry

OUBubba said:
The most prolific example of an internet troll in my life calls me a troll. Not sure how I'm supposed to be feeling here. I paid the $75 to be a sponsor. So, to quote the great Florence, kiss my grits!

musburger is more trolly but you've got him on the posting numbers.
Click to expand...
Wait you paid $75? I’m going to audit this when Dion gets back.
 
Joe Fan said:
Why are all US corporations now run by bed wetters?
Click to expand...
Not all, just the biggest ones. The managers of those companies want two things; 1-reduced competition and 2- cheap foreign labor. They see the government as a company that they can manage by giving enough money to the politicians to buy influence, and helping those politicians write the rules.
 
iatrogenic said:
Not all, just the biggest ones. The managers of those companies want two things; 1-reduced competition and 2- cheap foreign labor. They see the government as a company that they can manage by giving enough money to the politicians to buy influence, and helping those politicians write the rules.
Click to expand...

Very true, and this isn't new. Big business hasn't really been conservative since the New Deal. They want their costs held down (cheap labor whether foreign or domestic), and they want their risk limited and managed through suppressed competition (usually through regulatory regimes implemented by agencies they have captured) and federal cash (through sleazy politicians). They'd much rather be a stable, consistent moneymaker like a public utility than an innovative force that grows quickly but can lose everything at any time if things go badly.

Economic fascism is the goal, and during the New Deal, they realized that the government can give it to them. There have been times when they've danced with the Right (usually to weaken labor unions), but when it's time for true laissez-faire, market-driven economics, they realign with Left and just hope they can keep the true crackpots like AOC from ever gaining control. They like taxes being low, but even that has its limits. They obviously prefer a 28 percent tax rate (passed by Reagan) over a 39.6 percent rate (passed by Clinton and reinstated by Obama), but they'll happily take that 39.6 percent rate if it means bailouts, lots of immigration, Chinese ball-licking, and dutiful regulators erecting barriers to entry for competitors.

But wait, Democrats like unions, and big business doesn't like unions, right? It's a bit exaggerated. Unions do make sure nobody gets paid too little, but a CBA negotiated with an existent but weak union also kinda makes sure nobody gets paid too much either. It's standardized mediocrity in both pay and performance. Besides, when was the last time Democrats did something really big for unions (other than public sector unions)? In the last 30 years, I honestly can't name a single thing. Hell, Taft-Hartley (the law that really keeps unions in check - makes sure they don't act like European unions) was enacted in 1947. Democrats had many, many chances to repeal it. They easily could have done it in the mid-'60s and late '70s when they had giant majorities in Congress and the White House. They could have done it in the early '90s. They could have done it in the late 2000s. Not only did they never do it, they never even seriously threatened it. Until that's gone and until immigration (which is a major union buster) slows down, unions are a bit of a paper tiger, and the business community knows it and doesn't mind playing ball with them a little for all the other benefits they get from the economic fascism of modern Democrats.
 
The Libs are trying to give the unions' ill-managed pension plans $58 billion, because, I guess, that's how you fight the Rona. That's on top of a few hundred billion for poorly managed cities run by Libs.

Bottom line, Libs are again stealing money from the accountable, responsible, productive members of society both now and in the future, and giving it to the unproductive, unthinking, unaccountable members of society, which are mostly Liberals.

Eventually, this idiocy will make us all poor.
 
Last edited:
OUBubba said:
The most prolific example of an internet troll in my life calls me a troll. Not sure how I'm supposed to be feeling here. I paid the $75 to be a sponsor. So, to quote the great Florence, kiss my grits .... .
Click to expand...

Your post made me look at my site stats. Those stats say that I have been here since 1999 (although not continuously). In that time, I have made 56,224 total posts
And I have received received 34,031 "likes."
61% of all my posts, on average, have received a "like"
Stated another way, I receive a "like" for every 1.6 post I make
This is quite possibly the record number of likes for HF but I am not certain of that. But I do feel like I have a good shot at highest rate of likes per post. 61% seems like it would be a record for anyone with a reasonable minimum amount of posts (say 4,000 or more?)

And get this, it is possible my stats are even better than they appear above. How? What if the counted "likes" are actually limited to the "like" response-emoji? In other words, what if this stat does not include the full range of response-emojis? For example -- "funny" (I get a lot of those) or "winner" or "agree" or "hot?" I even get a lot of "wtfs" and "poops" that are often intended as positive responses. If we include all of those, it is possible I have a one-to-one like-to-post relationship -- one "like" on average for every single post. Seems like a lot. And hardly trollish, as you allege above.

Your site stats, on the other hand, are pretty meager, to be generous. It says you have been here, living vicariously through us, since 2001. Yet you have managed just 16% "likes." My land-thieving dude, that is some pretty pathetic trolling.
 
Joe Fan said:
Your post made me look at my site stats. Those stats say that I have been here since 1999 (although not continuously). In that time, I have made 56,224 total posts
And I have received received 34,031 "likes."
61% of all my posts, on average, have received a "like"
Stated another way, I receive a "like" for every 1.6 post I make
This is quite possibly the record number of likes for HF but I am not certain of that. But I do feel like I have a good shot at highest rate of likes per post. 61% seems like it would be a record for anyone with a reasonable minimum amount of posts (say 4,000 or more?)

And get this, it is possible my stats are even better than they appear above. How? What if the counted "likes" are actually limited to the "like" response-emoji? In other words, what if this stat does not include the full range of response-emojis? For example -- "funny" (I get a lot of those) or "winner" or "agree" or "hot?" I even get a lot of "wtfs" and "poops" that are often intended as positive responses. If we include all of those, it is possible I have a one-to-one like-to-post relationship -- one "like" on average for every single post. Seems like a lot. And hardly trollish, as you allege above.

Your site stats, on the other hand, are pretty meager, to be generous. It says you have been here, living vicariously through us, since 2001. Yet you have managed just 16% "likes." My land-thieving dude, that is some pretty pathetic trolling.
Click to expand...
LOL. Whatever snowflake.

I could post the secret Chik Fil A recipe and get 25 poops.
 
:smile1:

Eu7jTKdWQAI0KMD
 
Joe Fan said:
Your post made me look at my site stats. Those stats say that I have been here since 1999 (although not continuously). In that time, I have made 56,224 total posts
And I have received received 34,031 "likes."
61% of all my posts, on average, have received a "like"
Stated another way, I receive a "like" for every 1.6 post I make
This is quite possibly the record number of likes for HF but I am not certain of that. But I do feel like I have a good shot at highest rate of likes per post. 61% seems like it would be a record for anyone with a reasonable minimum amount of posts (say 4,000 or more?)

And get this, it is possible my stats are even better than they appear above. How? What if the counted "likes" are actually limited to the "like" response-emoji? In other words, what if this stat does not include the full range of response-emojis? For example -- "funny" (I get a lot of those) or "winner" or "agree" or "hot?" I even get a lot of "wtfs" and "poops" that are often intended as positive responses. If we include all of those, it is possible I have a one-to-one like-to-post relationship -- one "like" on average for every single post. Seems like a lot. And hardly trollish, as you allege above.

Your site stats, on the other hand, are pretty meager, to be generous. It says you have been here, living vicariously through us, since 2001. Yet you have managed just 16% "likes." My land-thieving dude, that is some pretty pathetic trolling.
Click to expand...

Curious how that analysis plays out without the cheer section? There are 2-3 posters that would "like" you posting a picture of dog feces with no context at all and would throw a poop emoji on an @OUBubba post was fact-based and insightful simply because it was a perspective they didn't agree with.

In other words, you've measured your fanbase. Good for you...I guess. You've confirmed that the West Mall has a conservative bias. Brilliant insight. ;) At least we know what drives your posting habits because it certainly hasn't been a desire for truth or for debate on important topics.
 
Seattle Husker said:
Curious how that analysis plays out without the cheer section? There are 2-3 posters that would "like" you posting a picture of dog feces with no context at all and would throw a poop emoji on an @OUBubba post was fact-based and insightful simply because it was a perspective they didn't agree with.

In other words, you've measured your fanbase. Good for you...I guess. You've confirmed that the West Mall has a conservative bias. Brilliant insight. ;) At least we know what drives your posting habits because it certainly hasn't been a desire for truth or for debate on important topics.
Click to expand...
By his own strong research, he's not a troll. He's the pivot man in the circle.

Take notice Husker, you are at 16.60% of likes to post ratio and I'm at 16.55%. I'm not sure if the poop emoji counts as a like or not, if so, my stats are going to skew lower. Maybe Joe can square that away for us. Regardless, I'm coming for you Husker!!!
 
Economic fascism is the goal, and during the New Deal, they realized that the government can give it to them. There have been times when they've danced with the Right (usually to weaken labor unions), but when it's time for true laissez-faire, market-driven economics, they realign with Left and just hope they can keep the true crackpots like AOC from ever gaining control.
Click to expand...

Holy $hit Deez! You sound like a libertarian.
 
A conservative is a libertarian who likes America and God and doesn't like drugs.
Click to expand...

But wants the US government's boot on their neck? I like America and God. Don't like drugs. I am not quite a conservative, but very very close. But I prioritize freedom for individual's and shrinking the size of government.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top