Leo Marks tried to warn you about Mitt Romney

[erynthered]

Cool. Fresh bowl.

 

3rd, you bring the beer this time!!

[Juror#8]

I haven't lost any control of any points of criticism. You don't know anything about running a business. No matter how much you pretend. I guarantee, your friends' business fortunes don't rise and fall daily on their early morning decisions, I guarantee there's constraints on their decisions (far more than you think), and I guarantee that people make decisions in government all the time (maybe not in "legislative politics") with little interference. I know, I have them inflicted on me daily.

 

I'm sure you ridiculous criticism of that will be something along the lines of "the decisions you're talking about aren't at the same scale." Yeah, and you're comparing Lee Iacocca and Mitt Romney to sole proprieters of private S-corps.

 

And I take back my earlier retraction: you don't know how government works. Maybe you know how "legislative politics" works. But that strikes me as akin to saying you know how to run a restaurant because you once made sausage.

 

1. I've said on numerous occassions that I'm not very familiar with the way business runs operationally.

 

2. Two LLCs and an S-Corps actually.

 

3. The only constraint on his decision is his fiduciary responsibility to his share-holders and his conscious. But he has all kinds of carte blanche. Again, there is none of that in government.

 

4. Take it back all you want. You're just butt hurt because I called you unsophisticated. Cry about it winch. The fact remains, I know government...well. You don't.

 

I know legislative politics because that is what I do.

 

I also know the Judiciary as I have petitioned for cert on behalf of clients and drafted habeas motions in Fed court on behalf of clients. I'm not an expert, but I can tell you a bit about judicial functions.

 

I've also worked on presidential campaigns at a grass-roots level (door-to-door canvasing and local strategy sessions). I interned at the Republican National Convention in 2000 and 2004 and my academic background is in matters of politics, domestic governance, and policy. My brother works in the WH. Heck, I even had lunch with Gerald Ford a few times. Again, I'm not an expert, but I can speak cogently on matters of executive governance.

 

I know government. Not as much as some. But certainly more than you.

 

How about you? Oh yea...you watch the news and politic with your alcoholic relatives.

 

Get the !@#$ outta here.

 

Here comes the..."oh you consider yourself an expert/aren't you special" posts. Save all that ****. I'm pointing out that I have some background to talk about matters of government and politics. And my background is more extensive than yours.

 

Good night.

 

In good faith, I'll try again. From your first post:

 

 

So concern #1 is that A) a CEO makes decisions in the morning that transparently and directly lead to either a profit or loss in the next day, week, or year. B)Gov't doesn't work that way. Therefore: C)Is this difference an impediment to Romney's success?

 

 

 

And Concern #2 is that Business folks don't show well as President.

 

 

 

Since I believe your concern #1 to be completely inaccurate: No. They're not related. That's what people keep trying to tell you. Concern #1 does not reflect reality. Business is not nearly as transparent as you're attempting to make it. In my opinion.

 

Good points and food for thought. I wish that you'd offer more than declaratives. But it's a start for both of us to have a reasoned conversation.

 

The conversation has developed some of these points a bit more since a week ago. In my last post before I began pissing all in DCTom's mouth, and in my response to OC, I mentioned a couple of things relative to business and presidents that I'd be interested in getting your response to.

 

Cool. Fresh bowl.

 

3rd, you bring the beer this time!!

 

I've kicked enough ass for a few days folks. We'll give time for Tom to post something and get excited because I haven't responded for a few days. It'll make him think that he stumped me. :-P

 

Then I'll return to **** in his face some more.

 

Until then.....

[meazza]

I've kicked enough ass for a few days folks. We'll give time for Tom to post something and get excited because I haven't responded for a few days. It'll make him think that he stumped me. :-P

Until then.....

Are you the reincarnation of Holcombs_Arm?

Edited February 29, 2012 by meazza

[DC Tom]

1. I've said on numerous occassions that I'm not very familiar with the way business runs operationally.

 

2. Two LLCs and an S-Corps actually.

 

3. The only constraint on his decision is his fiduciary responsibility to his share-holders and his conscious. But he has all kinds of carte blanche. Again, there is none of that in government.

 

4. Take it back all you want. You're just butt hurt because I called you unsophisticated. Cry about it winch. The fact remains, I know government...well. You don't.

 

I know legislative politics because that is what I do.

 

I also know the Judiciary as I have petitioned for cert on behalf of clients and drafted habeas motions in Fed court on behalf of clients. I'm not an expert, but I can tell you a bit about judicial functions.

 

I've also worked on presidential campaigns at a grass-roots level (door-to-door canvasing and local strategy sessions). I interned at the Republican National Convention in 2000 and 2004 and my academic background is in matters of politics, domestic governance, and policy. My brother works in the WH. Heck, I even had lunch with Gerald Ford a few times. Again, I'm not an expert, but I can speak cogently on matters of executive governance.

 

I know government. Not as much as some. But certainly more than you.

 

How about you? Oh yea...you watch the news and politic with your alcoholic relatives.

 

Get the !@#$ outta here.

 

Here comes the..."oh you consider yourself an expert/aren't you special" posts. Save all that ****. I'm pointing out that I have some background to talk about matters of government and politics. And my background is more extensive than yours.

 

Good night.

 

 

 

Good points and food for thought. I wish that you'd offer more than declaratives. But it's a start for both of us to have a reasoned conversation.

 

The conversation has developed some of these points a bit more since a week ago. In my last post before I began pissing all in DCTom's mouth, and in my response to OC, I mentioned a couple of things relative to business and presidents that I'd be interested in getting your response to.

 

1) Then why are you even making statements concerning how businesses are run? Why the !@#$ are we even having this discussion if you KNOW you don't know what you're talking about?

 

3) He also usually has to answer to a board, and often some sort of regulators. And the law - contract law springs to mind most immediately, otherwise GM never gets taken over by the government. A CEO's decisions are actually very constrained, even before they're implemented. But knowing !@#$-all about business, you wouldn't know that.

 

4) You know government how? Legislative politics? Have you ever so much as been in the same room with someone that had to make a decision in their lives? I highly doubt what you do has any relation to what you're attempting to talk about. Care to explain how your experience in "legislative politics" gives you executive insight?

 

Because this is what the discussion you started is about: the nature of decision-making in leadership positions. You have yet to show where you have any expertise at all to discuss that. In fact, so far you've demonstrated a complete and utter lack

[OCinBuffalo]

Awesome post and good points. I think you, like Magox and Taro, highlighted some traits that a dedicated business professional would have which translates well to the presidency.

 

In your case, you mention "convincing."

 

I think that you're right generically. I'm just not sure that Mitt has that skill himself. He worked with a democratic house to effectuate some change. But it could be said that he accomplished that somewhat subversively and without the benefit of any side knowing where he truly stood.

 

It's only recently that we're learning his "true" leanings. The base in national politics holds you to account more definitively than in state politics. I'm not sure that he can be as nebulous to solidify alliances. He is gonna be on record and he can't change his mind for political advantage.

 

Will that affect his ability to "convince" when Tony Perkins is perched on his shoulder preaching certitude?

 

But good point nonetheless.

Well, this I can say for certain: Mitt would have been fired at Boston Consulting Group, long BEFORE he was asked by the ex-partners from BCG to join Bain, if he wasn't made of the right material or wasn't a good convincer. That's cause I know BCG quite well. If Romney wasn't material, he would have been gone in the first month.

 

One of our rules is: NEVER let anyone know what you truly think. It's not your job to tell the client what you truly think about them, their business, the industry in general, etc. Who cares what you think anyway? Your job is to figure out what they need to hear, so that the project can be effective, and so that they can be effective, like a coach does. It does no good to take the focus off the problems and the client, and put it on you, or where you "stand". You aren't getting paid for grandiose opinions, you are getting paid for results. Why else do you think I come here? This is where I get to espouse my grandiose opinions.

 

I have to think a lot of that governs Mitt's approach.

 

Therefore, I don't see what you are saying as anything other than what we call "as expected". I fully expect Romney to get the results that the client engaged him to deliver(um, state-run health care in Massachusetts for example), while ensuring that no one knows where he truly stands. For us, that's merely called "performing up to standard". See, we don't do "best results possible", like lawyers. Or "results based on strict conformance to some preconceived notion/ideology". We only do results...as engaged, that you cannot get anywhere else because they simply don't have the grey matter to see it and then the implementation skills, part of which are political, to do it.

 

See? Getting the right job done right for the client is what this is all about. What is the right job? Depends on the client, doesn't it?

 

EDIT: I don't know why Mitt doesn't just come out and say this....but, if he did, he'd be breaking another rule: We don't talk about the how with clients, only the what, when, where, why, etc..

Edited February 29, 2012 by OCinBuffalo

[Alaska Darin]

The base in national politics holds you to account more definitively than in state politics.

[3rdnlng]

Cool. Fresh bowl.

 

3rd, you bring the beer this time!!

 

 

You have a fresh bowl, eh? You sure you should be advertising that? Oh, I forgot you mean popcorn. It's too bad I'm so late to the party. I'll try to pay closer attention for the next flareup of this pissing match.

[Jauronimo]

You have a fresh bowl, eh? You sure you should be advertising that? Oh, I forgot you mean popcorn. It's too bad I'm so late to the party. I'll try to pay closer attention for the next flareup of this pissing match.

It might be entertaining if this thread wasn't exactly like every other thread started by J8. J8 continues to adopt positions that are nearly indefensible out of his desire to be the smartest kid in class, gets attacked on all sides, back tracks and qualifies his initial argument into a tiny little box, then accuses everyone of obfuscating, conflating, and equivocating, before asserting that no one is intelligent enough to understand his arguments and then declares total victory.

 

Sorry, I forgot the step where he declares that the board has no right to scrutinize his outlandish claims unless said claim totally encapsulates his greater nebulous point.

 

Its the same basic formula every time.

[Chef Jim]

Cool. Fresh bowl.

 

Smoking it or eating popcorn out of it?

[DC Tom]

It might be entertaining if this thread wasn't exactly like every other thread started by J8. J8 continues to adopt positions that are nearly indefensible out of his desire to be the smartest kid in class, gets attacked on all sides, back tracks and qualifies his initial argument into a tiny little box, then accuses everyone of obfuscating, conflating, and equivocating, before asserting that no one is intelligent enough to understand his arguments and then declares total victory.

 

Sorry, I forgot the step where he declares that the board has no right to scrutinize his outlandish claims unless said claim totally encapsulates his greater nebulous point.

 

Its the same basic formula every time.

 

You also forgot the part where he only wants to have a discussion...as long as it doesn't involve discussing how he's incorrect.

[Jauronimo]

You also forgot the part where he only wants to have a discussion...as long as it doesn't involve discussing how he's incorrect.

You're just incapable of understanding J8 and his self-described "complicated" politics.

[GG]

Well, this I can say for certain: Mitt would have been fired at Boston Consulting Group, long BEFORE he was asked by the ex-partners from BCG to join Bain, if he wasn't made of the right material or wasn't a good convincer. That's cause I know BCG quite well. If Romney wasn't material, he would have been gone in the first month.

 

 

.. Romney didn't work at BCG, but at Bain Consulting.

[erynthered]

Smoking it or eating popcorn out of it?

 

 

Smoking the popcorn.

[DC Tom]

You're just incapable of understanding J8 and his self-described "complicated" politics.

 

Of course not. I never read Iacocca, so I can't understand how S-corps make Romney unsuitable for politics.

[Juror#8]

It might be entertaining if this thread wasn't exactly like every other thread started by J8. J8 continues to adopt positions that are nearly indefensible out of his desire to be the smartest kid in class, gets attacked on all sides, back tracks and qualifies his initial argument into a tiny little box, then accuses everyone of obfuscating, conflating, and equivocating, before asserting that no one is intelligent enough to understand his arguments and then declares total victory.

 

Sorry, I forgot the step where he declares that the board has no right to scrutinize his outlandish claims unless said claim totally encapsulates his greater nebulous point.

 

Its the same basic formula every time.

 

1. What was my position that was indefensible?

 

2. Smartest kid in the class? What gives you that impression?

 

3. What was my entire argument and what did I mention that qualified that argument into a tiny box? Specifics.

 

4. When did I say that there is no one capable of understanding my argument?

 

5. When did I declare "total victory" in the debate (aside from mentioning that I kicked DCTom's ass is a **** thowing contest)?

 

6. When I mention that the board had no right to scrutinize my comments?

 

Interestingly enough, the only thing that I mentioned with respect to you in this thread is to thank you for the discussion. Is that the moment when I "accused you of obfuscating," or told you that you aren't "intelligent enough to understand [the] arguments"?

 

Did you just get ahead of yourself in the mob frenzy? It's ok if you did.

 

You also forgot the part where he only wants to have a discussion...as long as it doesn't involve discussing how he's incorrect.

 

Exactly, as I willingly mentioned that I wrongly attributed the Iacocca quote 9no one else caught that). And I mentioned my shortcomings in business and so therefore I'll defer to others with respect to those areas.

 

You're wrong bordering on purposefully misleading and lying.

Edited March 1, 2012 by Juror#8

[....lybob]

It might be entertaining if this thread wasn't exactly like every other thread started by J8. J8 continues to adopt positions that are nearly indefensible out of his desire to be the smartest kid in class, gets attacked on all sides, back tracks and qualifies his initial argument into a tiny little box, then accuses everyone of obfuscating, conflating, and equivocating, before asserting that no one is intelligent enough to understand his arguments and then declares total victory.

 

Sorry, I forgot the step where he declares that the board has no right to scrutinize his outlandish claims unless said claim totally encapsulates his greater nebulous point.

 

Its the same basic formula every time.

I support j8 and admire his stamina to trade brutally long posts with OC, also I give him credit for not sprinkling emoticons all over his writing.

[DC Tom]

1. What was my position that was indefensible?

 

2. Smartest kid in the class? What gives you that impression?

 

3. What was my entire argument and what did I mention that qualified that argument into a tiny box? Specifics.

 

4. When did I say that there is no one capable of understanding my argument?

 

5. When did I declare "total victory" in the debate (aside from mentioning that I kicked DCTom's ass is a **** thowing contest)?

 

6. When I mention that the board had no right to scrutinize my comments?

 

Interestingly enough, the only thing that I mentioned with respect to you in this thread is to thank you for the discussion. Is that the moment when I "accused you of obfuscating," or told you that you aren't "intelligent enough to understand [the] arguments"?

 

Did you just get ahead of yourself in the mob frenzy? It's ok if you did.

 

Keep repeating all that, and maybe it'll start being true.

 

Your premise was that people with experience as business owners can't lead the country. It's indefensible because it was based on fundamental misunderstandings of...reality, really. Even if, somehow, your premise was at all accurate, the way in which you reach it is laughably ignorant. The thought process counts. Yours sucks. A lot. Your idiotic comments on business were only the cream of that crop.

 

And that you can't even self-assess your own retarded statements shows how utterly lost you are.

[Magox]

Keep repeating all that, and maybe it'll start being true.

 

Your premise was that people with experience as business owners can't lead the country. It's indefensible because it was based on fundamental misunderstandings of...reality, really. Even if, somehow, your premise was at all accurate, the way in which you reach it is laughably ignorant. The thought process counts. Yours sucks. A lot. Your idiotic comments on business were only the cream of that crop.

 

And that you can't even self-assess your own retarded statements shows how utterly lost you are.

Come on! Tell us what you really feel? I think you're holding back.

[DC Tom]

Come on! Tell us what you really feel? I think you're holding back.

 

If anything, I'm overstating. I just think he's kinda funny.

[Chef Jim]

If anything, I'm overstating. I just think he's kinda funny.

 

He reminds me of a rep I recently hired who has finally gotten a job at the age of 28 after being a career student. He knows nothing about working in the real world but is telling me how he wants to change some of our processes. And he puts lines like these in his emails to prospects.

 

 

 

 

I wouldn't be pushing for this if I didn't believe, in my PhD level cognitive evaluation abilities, that this could be a great benefit