• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Curt Schilling bounced from big show

Can't find much on google, but what I found is kinda hypocritical.
Curt Schilling Needs Government Relief | Drudge Retort
Great Moments in Chutzpah: Curt Schilling speaks | HardballTalk
His positions and his actions are incompatible.
He demonstrated 'private investment' to the tune of 50 million and as an employer of 400 people used available tools to try to keep those people employed. I believe SB said it best...maybe not the wisest of business decisions...but 'hypocrite' doesnt fit...unless you have found the new policy that says conservatives should be free from paying for those programs. You still have the expectation that even though the wealthiest of Americans have to PAY for all those programs you dont think thyey should take advantage of them. And as I told TC...we ALL apparently agree the government should NOT be offering those programs to ANYONE. Correct? Until you find a way to allow people to opt out of paying for those programs via tax dollars they would be foolish to not take advantage of the system.
 
Just because someone is against certain economic policies, doesn't mean they won't drink from the cow when the milk is free. .

Yeah, we know. That's what makes him a hypocrite.
 
The GOP, and Conservatives in general, fully understand the concept of tax breaks, loans etc. to attract business.

Understand it? They make fortunes on the backs of taxpayers utilizing it, while complaining about the 'Gummint' to everybody who will listen.
 
He demonstrated 'private investment' to the tune of 50 million and as an employer of 400 people used available tools to try to keep those people employed. I believe SB said it best...maybe not the wisest of business decisions...but 'hypocrite' doesnt fit...unless you have found the new policy that says conservatives should be free from paying for those programs. You still have the expectation that even though the wealthiest of Americans have to PAY for all those programs you dont think thyey should take advantage of them. And as I told TC...we ALL apparently agree the government should NOT be offering those programs to ANYONE. Correct? Until you find a way to allow people to opt out of paying for those programs via tax dollars they would be foolish to not take advantage of the system.


Once again, the crux of this isn't that he took advantage of these programs, it's his comments and those of his fellow conservatives suggesting the practice isn't a good one. Therein lies the hypocrisy.

Not sure why that concept is escaping you and others from the right.

Liken it to a preacher yammering about family values then banging his secretary behind his wife's back.

Same concept.

Walk the walk...
 
He demonstrated 'private investment' to the tune of 50 million and as an employer of 400 people used available tools to try to keep those people employed. I believe SB said it best...maybe not the wisest of business decisions...but 'hypocrite' doesnt fit...unless you have found the new policy that says conservatives should be free from paying for those programs. You still have the expectation that even though the wealthiest of Americans have to PAY for all those programs you dont think thyey should take advantage of them. And as I told TC...we ALL apparently agree the government should NOT be offering those programs to ANYONE. Correct? Until you find a way to allow people to opt out of paying for those programs via tax dollars they would be foolish to not take advantage of the system.
I don't have all the details on this story, but from what I see, it is hypocritical. He promotes self reliance and private enterprise, limited spending and then goes out and spends lots of money on a potential gamble and then asks the government for a bail out and says that this time government is good but all the other times government is bad. If he wanted to hold to his principles he should have gotten funding from only venture capital firms in the private market and not gone to government for a bail out. That does qualify as hypocrisy. He championed self reliance then went to government for loans, possibly additional loans, that is a little hypocritical. It looks like he over-leveraged himself, he did make a game, if it wasn't as successful, he shouldn't have continued development.
 
I don't have all the details on this story, but from what I see, it is hypocritical. He promotes self reliance and private enterprise, limited spending and then goes out and spends lots of money on a potential gamble and then asks the government for a bail out and says that this time government is good but all the other times government is bad. If he wanted to hold to his principles he should have gotten funding from only venture capital firms in the private market and not gone to government for a bail out. That does qualify as hypocrisy. He championed self reliance then went to government for loans, possibly additional loans, that is a little hypocritical. It looks like he over-leveraged himself, he did make a game, if it wasn't as successful, he shouldn't have continued development.

Nonsense. Your argument requires a huge warping of the facts. RI offered loans and other breaks for Schilling to locate his company there. Such is common, although the state is expected to exercise due diligence as a steward for investing its constituent's money.

Like it or not, RI was now an investor/lender. When 38 started to go under, Schilling did what any business does. Goes to its investors/creditors/lenders and says "we need more money or you lose your money".

All this continues to demonstrate is that liberals haven't a clue but even simple business functions.
 
Are you suggesting this is a revelation? Really? So Schilling, a self proclaimed conservative, takes a company oozing money and asks the state for more money to help them. And you have no problem with the hypocrisy of that?

Of course not.

I can only imagine how you'd react is Obama had done such a thing.

I think we know how people would react to Obama doing such a thing, since his record on bailing out or investing in companies is not exactly perfect. Billions have been tossed down the alternative energy rathole with little gain, to suggest just one.

Governments do this all the time for some perceived gain, ranging from actually believing that the money will help the state, feds, or cities, to paying off cronies. None of it is right. Companies should succeed or fail on their own merits.
 
Nonsense. Your argument requires a huge warping of the facts. RI offered loans and other breaks for Schilling to locate his company there. Such is common, although the state is expected to exercise due diligence as a steward for investing its constituent's money.

Like it or not, RI was now an investor/lender. When 38 started to go under, Schilling did what any business does. Goes to its investors/creditors/lenders and says "we need more money or you lose your money".

All this continues to demonstrate is that liberals haven't a clue but even simple business functions.
I didn't warp any facts, if I'm mistaken please point out where I'm wrong. A huge loan is not the same as a tax break. Taking that loan after failing to secure the money from private lenders is hypocritical. RI is not private enterprise, speaking out against government bail-outs and involvement and then taking the loan is hypocritical. Championing private enterprise and self reliance, then taking the huge loan is hypocritical.
 
I didn't warp any facts, if I'm mistaken please point out where I'm wrong. A huge loan is not the same as a tax break. Taking that loan after failing to secure the money from private lenders is hypocritical. RI is not private enterprise, speaking out against government bail-outs and involvement and then taking the loan is hypocritical. Championing private enterprise and self reliance, then taking the huge loan is hypocritical.

What ? It was a deal with the state, that in return for the loan, Schilling would move the company, and expand it, in Rhode Island. It was a quid-pro-quo business deal. It has nothing to do with bail-outs, and states make such deals all the time.
 
What ? It was a deal with the state, that in return for the loan, Schilling would move the company, and expand it, in Rhode Island. It was a quid-pro-quo business deal. It has nothing to do with bail-outs, and states make such deals all the time.
Ok. I assume the $75 million loan was in large excess of moving expenses only, it amounts to government trying out venture capital business.
 
So, is the seething hatred for Shilling because he's a conservative... because he's religious... or a combination of the two?

Just to be clear, his company cancelled health insurance on his employees, without telling them. Apparently they found out right before the layoffs when a guy went in for chemo and found out he was no longer insured. The people in his company are not even eligible for COBRA due to this. The outrage over that has nothing to do with his political positions.

Now, onto the rest of the story: Gamasutra - News - 38 Studios' Downfall: The Gamasutra Report

The above linked article has the best breakdown of events that I have found. Unlike most, it does not demonize nor over-inflate any one. Schilling sounds like a basically decent guy who made some mistakes. Politics did play a big part in the events, as did a large number of misrepresentations.

A 38 Studios employee corroborates, pointing out some of what he says are Chafee's most egregious acts of misinformation: Calling a private loan effectively cosigned by the state "taxpayer money" makes it appear that the state has already paid the cost, instead of being responsible for it in the event of failure.

And the highly-publicized million-dollar payment wasn't a loan payment as Chafee claimed, states the employee: "It was actually a weird extra fee to the board he was on, which had nothing to do with payments and interest -- [which was] already handled by setting aside a full third of the loan for that purpose," he adds. "This made it seem like we had somehow burned through all $75 million, including the money set aside to do this."

Chafee also publicly claimed 38's first release, the single-player RPG Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning, "failed," artificially deflating its sales numbers and suggesting it was a commercial flop -- which it wasn't. It's true that the game didn't sell enough to fulfill a clause whereby publisher Electronic Arts would start paying a cut to the studio, but employees say potential profits for Reckoning were never part of the budgeting plans for 38.

It is a long but fascinating article. If nothing else, you have to feel for the employees at 38 studios, who no matter how you look at it got something of a raw deal. The big money people, the executives, the governor of RI, Schilling, they will all be fine. Some of the employees however, well:

"While the average company salary has been quoted around $86,000, many many individuals were making far less than that, and living paycheck to paycheck," says a 38 Studios employee. "When we didn't get paid, it immediately became very difficult for a number of people, but they continued coming in and working anyway. As it seemed like things were not being resolved, people started bringing in extra food and leaving it in the kitchen for anyone who needed it to grab."
 
Once again, the crux of this isn't that he took advantage of these programs, it's his comments and those of his fellow conservatives suggesting the practice isn't a good one. Therein lies the hypocrisy.

Not sure why that concept is escaping you and others from the right.

Liken it to a preacher yammering about family values then banging his secretary behind his wife's back.

Same concept.

Walk the walk...
He took advantage of existing programs that he has to pay for as a taxpayer. Do we agree that the government should not be offering those programs to ANYONE? Do you at least agree that people should be able to opt out and not pay taxes to cover those services, which they then would be unable to access?

I personally believe the government should streamline he tax process and eliminate tax write offs. But until they do, am I a hypocrite for continuing to claim tax write-offs even though they have t fixed the process?
 
Ok. I assume the $75 million loan was in large excess of moving expenses only, it amounts to government trying out venture capital business.

State governments do it all the time. The only true issue is if the State is prudent. The article provided by Redress is good. I have read other articles that seem to indicate that, by industry standards, 38 Studios was still under-capitalized from the beginning, but launched hoping to kind of "borrow-go", that is, to be able to attract the funding when needed.

But all this fabricated stuff about "bail-outs" and "hypocrisy" is just that ... partisan crap from the usual suspects.
 
I don't have all the details on this story, but from what I see, it is hypocritical. He promotes self reliance and private enterprise, limited spending and then goes out and spends lots of money on a potential gamble and then asks the government for a bail out and says that this time government is good but all the other times government is bad. If he wanted to hold to his principles he should have gotten funding from only venture capital firms in the private market and not gone to government for a bail out. That does qualify as hypocrisy. He championed self reliance then went to government for loans, possibly additional loans, that is a little hypocritical. It looks like he over-leveraged himself, he did make a game, if it wasn't as successful, he shouldn't have continued development.
I can understand what you are saying. I dont see it the same way, but I get what you are saying. Had he come out and said "businesses should never go to the government for loans" and then done that...agree...no doubt. I see a difference in personal life and business life. Businesses operate differently. If he was trying to keep the company and their 400 employees employed and was doing so legally, i simply dont see it the same as, say, he was living way over his means and had to go to the government for a bailout.

I also dont believe the federal government should ever be in the business of speculating, and state governments ought to be very much beholden to their citizens if they get in this racket. If I was a citizen of Rhode island I would be pissed.
 
State governments do it all the time. The only true issue is if the State is prudent. The article provided by Redress is good. I have read other articles that seem to indicate that, by industry standards, 38 Studios was still under-capitalized from the beginning, but launched hoping to kind of "borrow-go", that is, to be able to attract the funding when needed.

But all this fabricated stuff about "bail-outs" and "hypocrisy" is just that ... partisan crap from the usual suspects.
Unless the citizens of the state have voted to authorize these types of business loans, states shouldnt be doing it. I understand investment. There are secure investments and there are foolish investments. this seems like it was a foolish investment.

MAYBE at the most they ought to offer some form of small scale small business loans...loans that were they to default they wouldnt leave the state on the hook for so much.
 
Trust, I know. But I do believe that Schilling got a lot of mileage out of his notoriety here.

I read a first article on this days ago, that went much more in depth into this actual business field. Something like "multi-player video games". It is a very complicated field. Companies can literally invest $200 million in a single game, with development and marketing. Comapred to other comanies in this field, Schilling was under-capitalized from the beginning. However, their first game did reasonably well.

Schilling went to the highest bidder. That is good business. He lost a lot of his own money as well.

Of course, those outraged by Solyndra are leading the charge on this one and those that see Solyndra as the right idea poorly executed feel the same here. Am I right, its about the issues, not the political affiliation of persons behind the issue???
 
Of course, those outraged by Solyndra are leading the charge on this one and those that see Solyndra as the right idea poorly executed feel the same here. Am I right, its about the issues, not the political affiliation of persons behind the issue???

Both Solyndra, and 38 Studios, as failures, will be scrutinized far more closely than those that succeed. If you are concerned about the excesses of Solyndra, you can look it up. There are significant differences in the circumstances of attracting a business to one's state, such as with 38, and then the Fed's throwing money at a business.

You are also confusing the point. If you want to compare Schilling to someone, its not to Obama. Compare Schilling to the folks behind Solyndra.

If you take issue with criticisms of the Obama Administration over Solyndra, then compare that to criticisms of RI.

But the parallel is not Schilling to Obama. Hardly.
 
Last edited:
Unless the citizens of the state have voted to authorize these types of business loans, states shouldnt be doing it. I understand investment. There are secure investments and there are foolish investments. this seems like it was a foolish investment.

MAYBE at the most they ought to offer some form of small scale small business loans...loans that were they to default they wouldnt leave the state on the hook for so much.

What was done with 38 is what states do. Albeit more prudently, it is hoped. When things do not work out, accountability is much more local as well. If for no other reason, the state has to balance its books. IMMHO, the Feds throw money around with far less accountability.
 
What was done with 38 is what states do. Albeit more prudently, it is hoped. When things do not work out, accountability is much more local as well. If for no other reason, the state has to balance its books. IMMHO, the Feds throw money around with far less accountability.
What they did is pretty good evidence they shouldnt ought to do it. At all. Ever. Secure investments is one thing.
 
Schilling just did a beyond terrible job of running that business. Aside from all the money that he got from investors, Rhode Island, and Berekley Investements he also sank 50 million of his own money into it.

Did Schilling actually run the business or was he the money?
 
Did Schilling actually run the business or was he the money?

Schilling founded the company and was an active part of the company, mostly on the financial side.
 
Both Solyndra, and 38 Studios, as failures, will be scrutinized far more closely than those that succeed. If you are concerned about the excesses of Solyndra, you can look it up. There are significant differences in the circumstances of attracting a business to one's state, such as with 38, and then the Fed's throwing money at a business.

You are also confusing the point. If you want to compare Schilling to someone, its not to Obama. Compare Schilling to the folks behind Solyndra.

If you take issue with criticisms of the Obama Administration over Solyndra, then compare that to criticisms of RI.

But the parallel is not Schilling to Obama. Hardly.

How did Obama get into this? I certainly was not trying to compare Schilling to Obama, I was trying to compare governments using tax dollars to provide incentives for business. In that case, there really isn't too much of a difference.... if you are outraged at government money underwriting Solyndra, then you should be outraged about government money underwriting 38 Special, or whatever they call themselves....

Personally, I understand the reasons for each transaction.... Solyndra probably had a broader, long-term strategic purpose, where 38 was more about a few jobs, but either way, I understand why governments want to do this, and in many cases, should do this..... but it is corporate welfare.
 
How did Obama get into this? I certainly was not trying to compare Schilling to Obama, I was trying to compare governments using tax dollars to provide incentives for business. In that case, there really isn't too much of a difference.... if you are outraged at government money underwriting Solyndra, then you should be outraged about government money underwriting 38 Special, or whatever they call themselves....

Personally, I understand the reasons for each transaction.... Solyndra probably had a broader, long-term strategic purpose, where 38 was more about a few jobs, but either way, I understand why governments want to do this, and in many cases, should do this..... but it is corporate welfare.

It is a kneejerk reaction among some. No matter what the topic, they point to something Obama has done, no matter how dissimilar. It is known as ODS.
 
How did Obama get into this? I certainly was not trying to compare Schilling to Obama, I was trying to compare governments using tax dollars to provide incentives for business. In that case, there really isn't too much of a difference.... if you are outraged at government money underwriting Solyndra, then you should be outraged about government money underwriting 38 Special, or whatever they call themselves....

Personally, I understand the reasons for each transaction.... Solyndra probably had a broader, long-term strategic purpose, where 38 was more about a few jobs, but either way, I understand why governments want to do this, and in many cases, should do this..... but it is corporate welfare.

You attempted to compare criticisms of Solyndra with criticisms for 38. They are different in many ways, as I pointed out. Obama's affiliation with Solyndra, to include visiting the place in-person and calling it "the future", combined with the investors there being bigtime donors, makes Obama very culpable with Solyndra.

Regardless, you brought up Solyndra. If you can't handle Obama being mentioned with Solyndra, get out of the kitchen.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom