Leo Marks tried to warn you about Mitt Romney

[DC Tom]

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why the hell would you hire someone like that? That makes me look normal.

[Chef Jim]

Why the hell would you hire someone like that? That makes me look normal.

 

Certain things you don't find out about people until it's too late.

Edited March 1, 2012 by Chef Jim

[GG]

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Don't cry to us, Evita. You just admitted you hired the guy.

[DC Tom]

Certain things you don't find out about people until it's too late.

 

He won't last. It won't take more than a couple of months (probably less) before the bug of the theoretical model that is his world-view is splattered all over the windshield of reality.

[Chef Jim]

Don't cry to us, Evita. You just admitted you hired the guy.

 

 

Where was I crying? As a matter of fact he's doing pretty well. There are just certain things about him that need to be refined which is what I'm good at. I was just pointing out that Juror8 reminds me of him.

[Juror#8]

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

 

1. "How business are run" wasn't central to my initial post. Characteristics of a business person and how well will they translate in to politics was central to the original post. Where Romney is from, his allegiances, etc. was central to my original post.

 

We're discussing this because you haven't discussed anything else.

 

3. Wow. So you want to discuss contract law as if that constrains a CEO? Let me save you the suspense: it doesn't.

 

For one, contract law governs a relationship once two entities who willingly enter into a bilateral arrangement (or unwillingly in the event of certain implied contracts and estoppel situations). Generally though, the CEO of the company is signing the MSAs, LOAs, SOWs, etc. Many times they're spear-heading the procurement of contractual partners, subs, etc. At my friends spot, his director of procurement has signature authority on contracts up to $25,000. After that, his is the final signature needed before a contract can be sent for counter. And he has to sign off on all reqs.

 

Then the contract is is in place (well, after the wet signature returns on his paper).

 

But then....once the contract is in place...the CEO can break it! They're not constrained by that contract. They can repudiate it. They'll pay their damages - all incidentals and consequentials (which is capped by general duties to mitigate) - and they'll move on to the next contractual relationship.

 

You think that a CEO is bound by contracts?!?!?! Son, you don't know **** about business or contracts if you believe that. That's laugh out loud funny!

 

I think that one of the few constraints that a good CEO has is governed by their ability to pay outside counsel.

 

Wanna argue that?

 

Let me know and I'll give you a tutorial on contracts. Contracts was my game before politics. I'll help you out.

 

Smooches.

 

4. I know government for the reasons that I mentioned in my last post to you. Have whatever person that reads to you read that again and then you get back to me with your next innane comment.

 

When did I say that "legistlative experience" provides "executive insight"? "Legislative experience" was relevant to the extent that it addressed your claim that I had a very basic understanding of government.

 

Now it somehow implicates an innability to understand "executive decision-making" on a corporate level? As if I referenced "legislative experience" and any level of "decision-making" in the same context. Son, that's not what we were discussing and you're conflating two separate conversation tones in order to confuse the direction of the conversation (but I bet that some clever person will use "conflate" in a later post to reference my having mentioned it - as if it somehow is being said, in it's current context, dismissively).

 

This CJ prop stuff is silly here in it's omnipresence.

 

Jauronimo, what were you saying again about nebulous points?

 

"The nature of decision-making in leadership positions" was one component of a larger thread. I also cursorily discussed presidential history, Mitt's geographic presence and if that implicates allegiance, Mitt's aggressive neo-cosmopolitanism and whether or not that implicates self-defeating opportunism.

 

Jauronimo, what were you saying again about qualifying positions?

 

Amateur hour.

[DC Tom]

I also cursorily discussed presidential history,

 

Which was even more ridiculous, in point of fact. I just didn't want to confuse you by addressing more than one point of your ignorance at a time.

[Juror#8]

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

 

Keep repeating what? Those were enumerated questions in response to Jauronimo's post. He made a bunch of claims and I simply asked for clarification.

 

 

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.

 

Let's stop here. Maybe here is where the disconnect is:

 

My premise wasn't that "business owners can't lead the country." My premise was that business owners haven't historically been good presidents.

 

That nuance is important. It's not "backtracking." It's true.

 

I ASKED IF THAT HISTORICAL TREND IMPLICATED ROMNEY'S ABILITY TO BE PRESIDENT.

 

From post #1 : "I wonder if there are attributes of a business owner which makes for unsuccessful politics on a national level."

 

That is on record. It's what I asked.

 

That is what I wanted to discuss. Instead of a discussion, I got people responding as if I made a declarative statement. I didn't. I asked questions.

People were defensive over a conversation that discussed the potential of an attribute that didn't translate well into presidential politics.

 

But don't rely on me. There are two bolded points above. It's on record. You mentioned that I was saying that "business owners can't lead the country." I say otherwise.

 

Using my words in the previous posts, prove the bolded points above wrong. That will conclude all the subsequent ****-slinging. With respect to the bolded points above, either I'm right or you're right.

 

Let's find out here and now. There is little else to discuss. Let's not conflate it any more. It's either wrong or right and why based on the record and not on anyone else's interpretations.

Edited March 1, 2012 by Juror#8

[Chef Jim]

 

Let's stop here. Maybe here is where the disconnect is:

 

My premise wasn't that "business owners can't lead the country." My premise was that business owners haven't historically been good presidents.

 

 

So if your premise wasn't that business owners can't lead the country what exactly were you inferring when you stated that business owners haven't historically been good Presidents??

[DC Tom]

Keep repeating what? Those were enumerated questions in response to Jauronimo's post. He made a bunch of claims and I simply asked for clarification.

 

That you're somehow beating me up.

 

 

Let's stop here. Maybe here is where the disconnect is:

 

My premise wasn't that "business owners can't lead the country." My premise was that business owners haven't historically been good presidents.

 

That nuance is important. It's not "backtracking." It's true.

 

I ASKED IF THAT HISTORICAL TREND IMPLICATED ROMNEY'S ABILITY TO BE PRESIDENT.

 

From post #1 : "I wonder if there are attributes of a business owner which makes for unsuccessful politics on a national level."

 

That is what I wanted to discuss. Instead of a discussion, I got people responding as if I made a declarative statement. I didn't. I asked questions.

 

But don't rely on me. There are two bolded points above. It's on record. You mentioned that I was saying that "business owners can't lead the country." I say otherwise.

 

Using my words in the previous posts, prove the bolded points above wrong. That will conclude all the subsequent ****-slinging. With respect to the bolded points above, either I'm right or you're right.

 

Let's find out here and now. There is little else to discuss.

 

"I wonder if there are attributes of a business owner which makes for unsuccessful politics on a national level."

 

You're somehow saying that's qualitatively different from saying that business owners are poor national leaders? And your bull **** "observations" that historically business owners are bad presidents, and that decision-making in business is somehow different from decision making in the "real" world, have no bearing on that?

 

And then, despite not making a declarative statement, all that was preceded by declarative statements that that was PRECISELY WHY ROMNEY COULDN'T BE A GOOD PRESIDENT.

 

And somehow, I'm confused, and you're intellectual and erudite.

 

Okay...

[Chef Jim]

That you're somehow beating me up.

 

 

 

 

"I wonder if there are attributes of a business owner which makes for unsuccessful politics on a national level."

 

You're somehow saying that's qualitatively different from saying that business owners are poor national leaders? And your bull **** "observations" that historically business owners are bad presidents, and that decision-making in business is somehow different from decision making in the "real" world, have no bearing on that?

 

And then, despite not making a declarative statement, all that was preceded by declarative statements that that was PRECISELY WHY ROMNEY COULDN'T BE A GOOD PRESIDENT.

 

And somehow, I'm confused, and you're intellectual and erudite.

 

Okay...

 

I wouldn't be pushing for this if I didn't believe, in my PhD level cognitive evaluation abilities, were more superior to yours.

 

[/Juror#8]

[Juror#8]

 

"I wonder if there are attributes of a business owner which makes for unsuccessful politics on a national level."

 

You're somehow saying that's qualitatively different from saying that business owners are poor national leaders?

 

They are VERY VERY VERY different.

 

One is soliciting responses based on an identified trend - and asking if anyone knows of any data that contradicts the trend.

 

One is a declarative statement. Ipso facto.

 

I wouldn't be pushing for this if I didn't believe, in my PhD level cognitive evaluation abilities, were more superior to yours.

 

[/Juror#8]

 

I asked a reasonable question in order to find some common ground or bridge a disconnect and this is where you're taking it.

 

It's like you want to maintain an enemy. Why?

 

That you're somehow beating me up.

 

 

 

 

"I wonder if there are attributes of a business owner which makes for unsuccessful politics on a national level."

 

You're somehow saying that's qualitatively different from saying that business owners are poor national leaders? And your bull **** "observations" that historically business owners are bad presidents, and that decision-making in business is somehow different from decision making in the "real" world, have no bearing on that?

 

And then, despite not making a declarative statement, all that was preceded by declarative statements that that was PRECISELY WHY ROMNEY COULDN'T BE A GOOD PRESIDENT.

 

And somehow, I'm confused, and you're intellectual and erudite.

 

Okay...

 

BTW...you mentioned that I inferred that "business persons CAN'T LEAD THE COUNTRY."

 

That's different than "poor national leaders."

 

So if your premise wasn't that business owners can't lead the country what exactly were you inferring when you stated that business owners haven't historically been good Presidents??

 

I was stating a fact based on a trend. And asking for discussion about whether or not there were attributes endemic to business persons that predicated that trend and if that implicated Romney's ability to be an effective president.

 

Or if the trend was just a happenstance of history?

 

Does that makes sense? I'm asking seriously, cause I want to know - not to be funny or snarky. There is a GLARING distinction to me.

Edited March 1, 2012 by Juror#8

[Chef Jim]

They are VERY VERY VERY different.

 

One is soliciting responses based on an identified trend - and asking if anyone knows of any data that contradicts the trend.

 

One is a declarative statement. Ipso facto.

 

 

 

I asked a reasonable question in order to find some common ground or bridge a disconnect and this is where you're taking it.

 

It's like you want to maintain an enemy. Why?

 

 

 

BTW...you mentioned that I inferred that "business persons CAN'T LEAD THE COUNTRY."

 

That's different than "poor national leaders."

 

 

 

I was stating a fact based on a trend. And asking for discussion about whether or not there were attributes endemic to business persons that predicated that trend and if that implicated Romney's ability to be an effective president.

 

Or if the trend was just a happenstance of history?

 

Does that makes sense? I'm asking seriously, cause I want to know - not to be funny or snarky. There is a GLARING distinction to me.

 

Distinction? Yes. Glaring? No.

[Nanker]

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.

 

You haven't figured out that they're the same person yet, have you.

Classic case of schizophrenia.

[OCinBuffalo]

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

wrong.

 

look it up