BarkLessWagMore Posted April 3, 2010 Posted April 3, 2010 joke is on us though eh? we keep electing mooks and expect them to lead our country. True that.
Marv's Neighbor Posted April 3, 2010 Posted April 3, 2010 Having been there, maybe that wouldn't be so bad?
Steely Dan Posted April 3, 2010 Posted April 3, 2010 Sometimes I think that future candidates should be from a pool of business and industry leaders. Clearly, to get where they are, they had to be hard working, wise with money and generally street smart intelligent. Since they make lots of money in our free capitalist system it should be mandatory they serve 2-4 years and they can return to their businesses after their stint. Of course there would have to be some checks and monitoring going on to insure that they wouldn't be totally self serving. It would be to their own benefit to make sure citizens had as much disposable income as possible. As happy as possible. What we have now is a bunch of paid salespeople. Experts in bs for the purpose of gaining power and money. Not motivated to help the country at all. Not smart. They have law degrees so I guess thats supposed to mean their smart. Government has become a industry in its own right. A lucrative career choice. Imho its not meant to be that. It's a necessary overhead to run basic services and thus should be lean as possible. What better type of person to run it than someone who has built something from the ground up and had to budget and plan wisely. Obviously a raw concept I know but look what we have now? How could this be worse? Anyway, just thought id float it out there. There aren't as many self made men as you'd think IMO. A lot of them come from wealth or have wealthy contacts through family. I don't want another George W.
WWVaBeach Posted April 3, 2010 Posted April 3, 2010 There aren't as many self made men as you'd think IMO. A lot of them come from wealth or have wealthy contacts through family. I don't want another George W. OK I'll bite...why?
dib Posted April 3, 2010 Posted April 3, 2010 Well, during WW2 the English jokingly claimed that the barrage balloons were there to keep England from sinking under the weight of the US presence. I'm sure DC Tom will dispute this.
dib Posted April 3, 2010 Posted April 3, 2010 Who is the hottie with the gun? Gun? Gun! This is my rifle, this is my gun, this one's for fighting, this one's for fun.
ExiledInIllinois Posted April 3, 2010 Posted April 3, 2010 Wasn't there a metaphor out there during Lend-Lease... That we (the US) put so much war material on the island of Great Britian... That it should "have sunk." Just saying that people have been known to use crazy metaphors.
ExiledInIllinois Posted April 3, 2010 Posted April 3, 2010 Well, during WW2 the English jokingly claimed that the barrage balloons were there to keep England from sinking under the weight of the US presence.I'm sure DC Tom will dispute this. What he say! dib...
ExiledInIllinois Posted April 3, 2010 Posted April 3, 2010 versus "it was a failed metaphor," which I believe has a considerably fewer number of professionals on hand to discuss at length, thus allowing the stupidity to (hopefully) die a quick publicity death. If it was metaphor, the only reason it failed is because of the Admiral's response. He had to know it was metaphor? And if he had any question that it wasn't, he should have gave the Congressman the benefit of doubt. As an officer and Admiral, he gets the repsect. I am not saying the Admiral shouldn't get respect... But the gloves are off now when it comes to disecting the Admiral's metaphors. Maybe the admiral doesn't use metaphor, he will be okay then. What I am saying is, it was a softball and the Admiral easily hit it out of the park knowing that the media would clamor all over a garbage hit. Not that I am defending either side here. I am just defending common courtesy. I don't know what is worse, what the congressman said or did the Admiral actually think the congressman was serious. Either way, there is no common courtesy. I don't think that this above mentality that is expressed above will float too much on this board. One almost never sees it between the "sides."
el Tigre Posted April 3, 2010 Posted April 3, 2010 Sometimes I think that future candidates should be from a pool of business and industry leaders. Clearly, to get where they are, they had to be hard working, wise with money and generally street smart intelligent. Since they make lots of money in our free capitalist system it should be mandatory they serve 2-4 years and they can return to their businesses after their stint. Of course there would have to be some checks and monitoring going on to insure that they wouldn't be totally self serving. It would be to their own benefit to make sure citizens had as much disposable income as possible. As happy as possible. What we have now is a bunch of paid salespeople. Experts in bs for the purpose of gaining power and money. Not motivated to help the country at all. Not smart. They have law degrees so I guess thats supposed to mean their smart. Government has become a industry in its own right. A lucrative career choice. Imho its not meant to be that. It's a necessary overhead to run basic services and thus should be lean as possible. What better type of person to run it than someone who has built something from the ground up and had to budget and plan wisely. Obviously a raw concept I know but look what we have now? How could this be worse? Anyway, just thought id float it out there. Your idea sounds nice,but it wouldn't be effective,nor should it be. You would be ruling out an entire class of people from running for office. Only rich,powerful buisness leaders need apply? No way. Few,if any,of our most effective presidents of the last century were successful buisnessmen.
bbb Posted April 3, 2010 Author Posted April 3, 2010 If it was metaphor, the only reason it failed is because of the Admiral's response. He had to know it was metaphor? And if he had any question that it wasn't, he should have gave the Congressman the benefit of doubt. As an officer and Admiral, he gets the repsect. I am not saying the Admiral shouldn't get respect... But the gloves are off now when it comes to disecting the Admiral's metaphors. Maybe the admiral doesn't use metaphor, he will be okay then. What I am saying is, it was a softball and the Admiral easily hit it out of the park knowing that the media would clamor all over a garbage hit. Not that I am defending either side here. I am just defending common courtesy. I don't know what is worse, what the congressman said or did the Admiral actually think the congressman was serious. Either way, there is no common courtesy. I don't think that this above mentality that is expressed above will float too much on this board. One almost never sees it between the "sides." Did you watch it?
ExiledInIllinois Posted April 3, 2010 Posted April 3, 2010 Did you watch it? Yes. Was it a failed metaphor or not? What I find scarier is that the Admiral didn't even give it a immediate thought that it may have been a metaphor. Again, to me, that is scary! Like Tom said... He obviously is afflicted. Maybe on the other hand, the Admiral he thought he was being kind by not pressing the "tipping" thing... Yet, it is not playing out that way with some. Now to answer your next question: What is my excuse? Answer: Sorry to say, nothing.
Fan in San Diego Posted April 3, 2010 Posted April 3, 2010 Sometimes I think that future candidates should be from a pool of business and industry leaders. Clearly, to get where they are, they had to be hard working, wise with money and generally street smart intelligent. Since they make lots of money in our free capitalist system it should be mandatory they serve 2-4 years and they can return to their businesses after their stint. Of course there would have to be some checks and monitoring going on to insure that they wouldn't be totally self serving. It would be to their own benefit to make sure citizens had as much disposable income as possible. As happy as possible. What we have now is a bunch of paid salespeople. Experts in bs for the purpose of gaining power and money. Not motivated to help the country at all. Not smart. They have law degrees so I guess thats supposed to mean their smart. Government has become a industry in its own right. A lucrative career choice. Imho its not meant to be that. It's a necessary overhead to run basic services and thus should be lean as possible. What better type of person to run it than someone who has built something from the ground up and had to budget and plan wisely. Obviously a raw concept I know but look what we have now? How could this be worse? Anyway, just thought id float it out there. Meg something or other is the former CEO of EBay, running for governor of Calif. That should make her qualified? I'm not so sure. EBay was going to grow like crazy no matter who was at the helm. She has no experience managing a ship in trouble.
Nanker Posted April 3, 2010 Posted April 3, 2010 2:47 in he misspells potatoe. The friggin' idiot, and it's written on the board right next to it. Maroon.
ExiledInIllinois Posted April 3, 2010 Posted April 3, 2010 2:47 in he misspells potatoe. The friggin' idiot, and it's written on the board right next to it. Maroon. Which meaning of Maroon? University of Chicago Montreal Maroons Or the runaway slaves?
DC Tom Posted April 3, 2010 Posted April 3, 2010 Well, during WW2 the English jokingly claimed that the barrage balloons were there to keep England from sinking under the weight of the US presence.I'm sure DC Tom will dispute this. No, Churchill actually said that in a meeting of the House of Commons.
DC Tom Posted April 3, 2010 Posted April 3, 2010 Meg something or other is the former CEO of EBay, running for governor of Calif. That should make her qualified? I'm not so sure. EBay was going to grow like crazy no matter who was at the helm. She has no experience managing a ship in trouble. You really are an idiot.
bbb Posted April 4, 2010 Author Posted April 4, 2010 No, Churchill actually said that in a meeting of the House of Commons. Was he not English?
DC Tom Posted April 4, 2010 Posted April 4, 2010 Was he not English? "No, I'm not going to disupte that. Churchill actually did say that. And it was in the House of Commons." Freakin' illiterates.
Recommended Posts