Who are the conservatives, and who are the progressives?

[OCinBuffalo]

We all know who they are supposed to be, and, we all know the time-honored definition of these words and concepts.

 

But...I've now asked myself that question 3 times in the last 4 days.

 

If you are for:

keeping the same system in place, even though it has demonstrable faults, and your rationale for doing that is: "well, what you are proposing makes ignoring the glaring failures of my system worth ignoring", then...aren't you the conservative?

 

If so, then which party is conservative when it comes to education? the military? SSI? Medicare? Medicaid? Tax Code? IRS? EPA? Insurance reform in general? Energy policy in general?

 

IF, and this is a big IF for many of you, you really think about it....the Democrats are now the conservatives. We have all these New Deal/Great Society/Department of Miseducation programs/grants etc....all of which are in need of either immediate reform/reorganization/consolidation or removal...

 

...and who is in favor of "doing what we always have done"? Who is in favor of fixing the problems?

 

The only thing that is "conservative" about conservatives these days...is the social stuff.

 

Who is the stodgy old man, who doesn't want to admit they, and their old programs, are antiquated, and in serious need of being updated to reflect the times in which we live?

 

Who is being the obnoxious guy at the meeting, because they seek to distract from the points they know they can't refute.(Seen this before in my work) Who is the tired, old, mainframe guy...who is screaming at the internet kids? Who are the internet kids, who both laugh at, and feel sorry for, the mainframe guy...and promise themselves, now, that they will never let themselves become so pathetic?

 

I need to see more, but as of today, it seems to me that both parties are heading in opposite directions. We have hippies getting old, and nasty, and about as far away from cool, open to risk, and forward-looking as you can imagine.

 

That position has been take over by libertarians. They are now the can-do people, and dare I say, responsible for 90% of the "progressive" thinking we have.

[3rdnlng]

We all know who they are supposed to be, and, we all know the time-honored definition of these words and concepts.

 

But...I've now asked myself that question 3 times in the last 4 days.

 

If you are for:

keeping the same system in place, even though it has demonstrable faults, and your rationale for doing that is: "well, what you are proposing makes ignoring the glaring failures of my system worth ignoring", then...aren't you the conservative?

 

If so, then which party is conservative when it comes to education? the military? SSI? Medicare? Medicaid? Tax Code? IRS? EPA? Insurance reform in general? Energy policy in general?

 

IF, and this is a big IF for many of you, you really think about it....the Democrats are now the conservatives. We have all these New Deal/Great Society/Department of Miseducation programs/grants etc....all of which are in need of either immediate reform/reorganization/consolidation or removal...

 

...and who is in favor of "doing what we always have done"? Who is in favor of fixing the problems?

 

The only thing that is "conservative" about conservatives these days...is the social stuff.

 

Who is the stodgy old man, who doesn't want to admit they, and their old programs, are antiquated, and in serious need of being updated to reflect the times in which we live?

 

Who is being the obnoxious guy at the meeting, because they seek to distract from the points they know they can't refute.(Seen this before in my work) Who is the tired, old, mainframe guy...who is screaming at the internet kids? Who are the internet kids, who both laugh at, and feel sorry for, the mainframe guy...and promise themselves, now, that they will never let themselves become so pathetic?

 

I need to see more, but as of today, it seems to me that both parties are heading in opposite directions. We have hippies getting old, and nasty, and about as far away from cool, open to risk, and forward-looking as you can imagine.

 

That position has been take over by libertarians. They are now the can-do people, and dare I say, responsible for 90% of the "progressive" thinking we have.

 

"Progressive" is a label hijacked by the libs (actually far left libs) to make them seem more reasonable. "Progressive, in and of itself is not bad. "Progressive", as it has been hijacked, is similiar to Obama's slogan of "Forward". If you don't know already, "Forward" is a Marxist owned expression.

[CosmicBills]

Boxing yourself into any ideological corner for the sake of a label is for weak minded people who want to feel better about themselves by identifying with a larger group. There's safety in numbers. If more people would think for themselves, we'd be in a much more productive spot than we're in now politically speaking.

[OCinBuffalo]

"Progressive" is a label hijacked by the libs (actually far left libs) to make them seem more reasonable. "Progressive, in and of itself is not bad. "Progressive", as it has been hijacked, is similiar to Obama's slogan of "Forward". If you don't know already, "Forward" is a Marxist owned expression.

You mean like how "Forward" was the magazine/pamphlet/whatever that both Marx and Engels worked at? Again, somebody doesn't know their history....this time, it's the Obama campaign. Hell of a way to prove you aren't a socialist, huh? But, it's better than WTF, I mean, Winning The Future, right? Let's see...internet age, FAIL, history, FAIL. 0-2...not good.

 

Progressive means you support the use of new technology and new research to either improve or replace the existing way of doing it. You look to apply technological improvement in other fields into government and government programs. You do not accept the failures of the existing system.

 

This is what is so curious to me. Rather than coming up with a new way..."progressives", with things like Obamacare, have simply extended the old way.

 

You don't have to be an IT guy to know that extending an existing architecture is not "change". It's merely finding way to get another few years out of your old system, as a hold-over, until you can get the resources to build the new thing. You know the old thing is old, and will eventually have to go. If it's done objectively, it's a well-founded business decision. However, most of the time, it's a bad business decision made by people who either aren't capable of, or are too afraid of, making the real changes necessary to meet the organizations current needs, and more importantly, addressing the needs we see coming 5 years down the road.

 

How many times have we heard about "exchanges" etc. This is not a new idea. This is a vehicle...to drive people into single payer...the old idea.

 

Where are are we going to be, with any of this, education, or anything else...5 years down the road?

[3rdnlng]

Boxing yourself into any ideological corner for the sake of a label is for weak minded people who want to feel better about themselves by identifying with a larger group. There's safety in numbers. If more people would think for themselves, we'd be in a much more productive spot than we're in now politically speaking.

 

Don't disagree a bit. Check out the "Lowering the Bar" thread and give your comments. I'd like to hear them.

 

You mean like how "Forward" was the magazine/pamphlet/whatever that both Marx and Engels worked at? Again, somebody doesn't know their history....this time, it's the Obama campaign. Hell of a way to prove you aren't a socialist, huh? But, it's better than WTF, I mean, Winning The Future, right? Let's see...internet age, FAIL, history, FAIL. 0-2...not good.

 

Progressive means you support the use of new technology and new research to either improve or replace the existing way of doing it. You look to apply technological improvement in other fields into government and government programs. You do not accept the failures of the existing system.

 

This is what is so curious to me. Rather than coming up with a new way..."progressives", with things like Obamacare, have simply extended the old way.

 

You don't have to be an IT guy to know that extending an existing architecture is not "change". It's merely finding way to get another few years out of your old system, as a hold-over, until you can get the resources to build the new thing. You know the old thing is old, and will eventually have to go. If it's done objectively, it's a well-founded business decision. However, most of the time, it's a bad business decision made by people who either aren't capable of, or are too afraid of, making the real changes necessary to meet the organizations current needs, and more importantly, addressing the needs we see coming 5 years down the road.

 

How many times have we heard about "exchanges" etc. This is not a new idea. This is a vehicle...to drive people into single payer...the old idea.

 

Where are are we going to be, with any of this, education, or anything else...5 years down the road?

 

OC, you misunderstood me completely. I mock today's "progressives" because they are anything but.

[OCinBuffalo]

Boxing yourself into any ideological corner for the sake of a label is for weak minded people who want to feel better about themselves by identifying with a larger group. There's safety in numbers. If more people would think for themselves, we'd be in a much more productive spot than we're in now politically speaking.

I'll remember that, and refer them to you, the next time I hear somebody on this board use the terms, "neo-con" or "uncaring libertarian" or "'You're all-on-your-own conservative" in the place of a rational argument, regarding WTF we do about education, Medicare, etc.

 

The choice of how to deploy your Meidcare, or SSI for that matter, is a new solution to the "entitlements WILL Fail" problem.

 

Telling us that we evil for wanting to fix them, and absolutely guaranteeing that they won't be touched...merely guarantees that they will absolutely FAIL.

 

And, no amount of raising taxes, when tax rates of 100% on the rich, yield $90 Billion, and current deficit = $1 trillion, solve the problem. Where do we get the other $910 billion from? Cutting DOD? Spending NOTHING on DOD doesn't even come close to solving this problem.

 

It's time, for ALL of us, to be "progressive"...if not, then ALL of us are idiots.

 

OC, you misunderstood me completely. I mock today's "progressives" because they are anything but.

No, I didn't. There was a real, by the book, "progressive" movement in this country started by TR, and continued by Taft. It was co-opted, and taken in a completely retarded direction, by Wilson.

 

This doesn't mean that, by the book, being a progressive has changed. It is as you said: assclowns have once again co-opted the word, bastardized the meaning, and now it means heading in the direction of old ideas that have failed the world over, and not reforming things that badly need it.

 

Moving towards the EU model, especially given their results, is anything but "progress", using technology to create new systems, or doing anything other than trying to hold the line on the bad old days. That, in fact, is a conservative approach.

 

Anyone that wants us to be more like Europe is anything but a progressive. How the F can you square moving towards 60-80-100 year old ideas...with being "progressive"?

[fjl2nd]

I have never labeled myself anything - liberal, progressive, moderate, etc. I will admit I'm a registered Democrat but I don't have a name for my "ideology". My views aren't concrete. They change over time coinciding with current problems.

 

Or should I use the word "evolve"??

Edited October 15, 2012 by fjl2nd

[3rdnlng]

I'll remember that, and refer them to you, the next time I hear somebody on this board use the terms, "neo-con" or "uncaring libertarian" or "'You're all-on-your-own conservative" in the place of a rational argument, regarding WTF we do about education, Medicare, etc.

 

The choice of how to deploy your Meidcare, or SSI for that matter, is a new solution to the "entitlements WILL Fail" problem.

 

Telling us that we evil for wanting to fix them, and absolutely guaranteeing that they won't be touched...merely guarantees that they will absolutely FAIL.

 

And, no amount of raising taxes, when tax rates of 100% on the rich, yield $90 Billion, and current deficit = $1 trillion, solve the problem. Where do we get the other $910 billion from? Cutting DOD? Spending NOTHING on DOD doesn't even come close to solving this problem.

 

It's time, for ALL of us, to be "progressive"...if not, then ALL of us are idiots.

 

 

No, I didn't. There was a real, by the book, "progressive" movement in this country started by TR, and continued by Taft. It was co-opted, and taken in a completely retarded direction, by Wilson.

 

This doesn't mean that, by the book, being a progressive has changed. It is as you said: assclowns have once again co-opted the word, bastardized the meaning, and now it means heading in the direction of old ideas that have failed the world over, and not reforming things that badly need it.

 

Moving towards the EU model, especially given their results, is anything but "progress", using technology to create new systems, or doing anything other than trying to hold the line on the bad old days. That, in fact, is a conservative approach.

 

Anyone that wants us to be more like Europe is anything but a progressive. How the F can you square moving towards 60-80-100 year old ideas...with being "progressive"?

 

Just what I was trying to say.

[OCinBuffalo]

I have never labeled myself anything - liberal, progressive, moderate, etc. I will admit I'm a registered Democrat but I don't have a name for my "ideology". My views aren't concrete. They change over time coinciding with current problems.

 

Or should I use the word "evolve"??

 

Well, then how's about evolving your ass over to where the grown ups are, who know that we have to do something genuinely different than we are, rather than trying to keep FDR/LBJ alive for nostalgic purposes?

 

Your nostalgia, and conservatism, is going to run the country into the ground.

 

As in my sig, Normal Rockwell is nice and all, but I assume you like your PS3, or whatever, and don't spend your Saturdays reading the evening paper, whilst smoking your pipe.

[fjl2nd]

 

Well, then how's about evolving your ass over to where the grown ups are, who know that we have to do something genuinely different than we are, rather than trying to keep FDR/LBJ alive for nostalgic purposes?

 

Your nostalgia, and conservatism, is going to run the country into the ground.

 

As in my sig, Normal Rockwell is nice and all, but I assume you like your PS3, or whatever, and don't spend your Saturdays reading the evening paper, whilst smoking your pipe.

 

That is quite the rant. I'm not even sure how to respond.

 

I have no nostalgia for FDR/LBJ, but there are lessons to be learned from all prior Presidents, good or bad.

 

I don't agree with the quote in your sig. Social Security can be saved and it SHOULD be saved.

[OCinBuffalo]

That is quite the rant. I'm not even sure how to respond.

 

I have no nostalgia for FDR/LBJ, but there are lessons to be learned from all prior Presidents, good or bad.

 

I don't agree with the quote in your sig. Social Security can be saved and it SHOULD be saved.

Then you do agree with me. You just don't get the metaphor.

 

Saturday....evening.....newspaper...pipe. Done.

 

(Hehehehe...check out hockey girl. Rockwell knew what was coming)

 

Normal Rockwell was popular once, because it reflected the society we had.

SSI's current model was right once, because it reflected the society we had.

 

We don't live in a society where a girl with a hockey stick is nutty way to sell papers...we live in one where girls play every day.

 

Normal Rockwell, is dead, and so is SSI if we keep the same model, and refuse to recognize that we don't have the same society, in any respect, that we once had.

 

The ONLY argument I have heard from the Democrats you ID with, for participating in the idiocy of not reforming it: boils down to a nostalgic one.

 

I have heard this both literally and figuratively. You don't want to relinquish the nostalgia, because that is what you base your party's identity on. The problem is: if you continue to be driven by this need to protect dead presidential legacies, those legacy systems are going to get you "fired".

Edited October 15, 2012 by OCinBuffalo

[Juror#8]

 

Well, then how's about evolving your ass over to where the grown ups are, who know that we have to do something genuinely different than we are, rather than trying to keep FDR/LBJ alive for nostalgic purposes?

 

Your nostalgia, and conservatism, is going to run the country into the ground.

 

As in my sig, Normal Rockwell is nice and all, but I assume you like your PS3, or whatever, and don't spend your Saturdays reading the evening paper, whilst smoking your pipe.

 

Question: Does the bold entail voting for Romney?

 

Second Question: The "social stuff..." really?

 

That's all it is? Or is that your way of claiming that you acknowledged something that, if you really got into detail with it, undermines your thesis.

 

But that's just if you want to look at these ideologies wholistically. If you want to piece-meal them, you can have all kinds of fun with contrarian theses.

 

And given the cyclical nature of the theoretical political spectrum, and how the right shoulder of anarchy touches the left shoulder totalitarianism, then one can postulate all kinds of fun theses and attribute them to different political proclivities.

 

But again, that may be more than what you were bargaining for on this Monday morning so I'll let you have your fun.

 

But just know - the "social stuff" is not an also-ran. And any discussion of the viccissitudes of political attributes and their relation to the mainstream political party agenda needs to acknowledge that breadth.

 

BTW - I see you very cleverly used the word "bastardizing" in a recent post. The influence of the Eighth Juror knows NO bounds.

 

 

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Edited October 15, 2012 by Juror#8

[OCinBuffalo]

Question: Does the bold entail voting for Romney?

It entails supporting the people who are most likely to 1) take the problem seriously 2) not try and demagogue anyone else that does 3) have serious approaches, or actual solutions, to solving the problem.

Second Question: The "social stuff..." really?

 

That's all it is? Or is that your way of claiming that you acknowledged something that, if you really got into detail with it, undermines your thesis.

The key to abbreviation and paraphrasing...is to retain the meaning. You have failed.

 

WTF is this babble?

But that's just if you want to look at these ideologies wholistically. If you want to piece-meal them, you can have all kinds of fun with contrarian theses.

 

And given the cyclical nature of the theoretical political spectrum, and how the right shoulder of anarchy touches the left shoulder totalitarianism, then one can postulate all kinds of fun theses and attribute them to different political proclivities.

 

But again, that may be more than what you were bargaining for on this Monday morning so I'll let you have your fun.

 

But just know - the "social stuff" is not an also-ran. And any discussion of the viccissitudes of political attributes and their relation to the mainstream political party agenda needs to acknowledge that breadth.

I....took a book definition of the word progressive, used that as my system of measure, applied said measurement to current liberal/progressive/whatever behavior WRT education, tax policy, etc.....and my measurement came back as a negative #, as in: conservative.

 

The definition of progressive....doesn't change because Hillary Clinton decides to co-opt it, and try to bastardize it. This has nothing to do with "coming full circle", or how the Green party actually agrees with libertarians on lots of things, or whatevetheF you are saying.

 

This has to do with 2, diametrically opposed, and politically permanent, antonyms = Conservative and Progressive. Each defines a set of expected behavior, but really, the behavior defines the word.

 

I have correctly identified clinging onto old FDR/LBJ programs without changing them, is by definition, conservative, not progressive, behavior.

BTW - I see you very cleverly used the word "bastardizing" in a recent post. The influence of the Eighth Juror knows NO bounds.

 

 

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Unmitigated Moron. I am in IT. I have been getting paid to do this since I was 16. The first time I heard "bastardize" was in reference to using a PC as a way to get around Mac vs. Vax networking problems. We bastardized the PC into being a router...of sorts...that could translate the problem child vax commands into something macs would get.

 

The first time you heard "bastardize" it was from an IT guy, or, you heard it from a guy who heard it from an IT guy. So spare me.

[Juror#8]

Figured you couldn't entertain a debate without mudslinging and name-calling and your usual non-sense. Look at my post and look at your response.

 

This is completely unnecessary. If you wouldn't say it to someone's face, maybe you should have the manners enough not to type it in an otherwise non-caustic discussion online.

 

And I guarantee you wouldn't call me a "moron" to my face without provocation. There would be a significant misunderstanding if so brother.

 

Moving on...

 

It entails supporting the people who are most likely to 1) take the problem seriously 2) not try and demagogue anyone else that does 3) have serious approaches, or actual solutions, to solving the problem.

 

Reasonable. Check. Moving on.

 

The key to abbreviation and paraphrasing...is to retain the meaning. You have failed.

 

You said that the only thing conservative about conservatives was "social stuff." You mentioned that as if it was easily reconcilable with your thesis.

 

It's unfortunate that you can't understand that.

 

WTF is this babble?

 

Said the unsophisticated prostitute at a bounded harmonic functions lecture.

 

I....took a book definition of the word progressive, used that as my system of measure, applied said measurement to current liberal/progressive/whatever behavior WRT education, tax policy, etc.....and my measurement came back as a negative #, as in: conservative.

 

The definition of progressive....doesn't change because Hillary Clinton decides to co-opt it, and try to bastardize it. This has nothing to do with "coming full circle", or how the Green party actually agrees with libertarians on lots of things, or whatevetheF you are saying.

 

This has to do with 2, diametrically opposed, and politically permanent, antonyms = Conservative and Progressive. Each defines a set of expected behavior, but really, the behavior defines the word.

 

I have correctly identified clinging onto old FDR/LBJ programs without changing them, is by definition, conservative, not progressive, behavior.

 

So.......what does that have to do with trivializing, or otherwise breezing through the characterization with regard to the social policy agenda?

 

I never argued with the substance of your point. I just mentioned that there was more to it if you wanted to claim a thorough analysis. You're apparently arguing with yourself.

 

But if you want to tell me more about how your original point is pretty cool, you can. I'll just tell you again that it's not analytically thorough.

 

Note that I'm not saying that there is no soundness to your argument. Interestingly enough, I think your argument is pretty interesting and I've made a similar one before in a slightly different context. However, in a comprehensive analytical sense, there is no divorcing the social agenda from respective political parties as it pertains to a "conservative," or "progressive" characterization.

 

Simple. Dimple.

 

Unmitigated Moron. I am in IT. I have been getting paid to do this since I was 16. The first time I heard "bastardize" was in reference to using a PC as a way to get around Mac vs. Vax networking problems. We bastardized the PC into being a router...of sorts...that could translate the problem child vax commands into something macs would get.

 

The first time you heard "bastardize" it was from an IT guy, or, you heard it from a guy who heard it from an IT guy. So spare me.

 

No, girlfriend, I heard the term bastard - understood the meaning of it - and then incorporated it where appropriate into my lexicon. I've never heard it used in the context that I use it and I certainly didn't hear it from an IT guy.

 

The only thing I hear from "IT guys" is a lot of "pleases," thanks yous" and " yes sir." Then I stroke them a check so they can get off my dick and get back to being 40 year old overweight losers who are too focused on their next IBFDLKJFVDKLJSFDJK++ certification to get some pussssssy or pay rent.

 

But as long as you dickless peons keep my firm's website up, you can continue with your little "profession" that is just an excuse for you to live in your mom's basement and continue meeting women in the Ukraine.

Edited October 15, 2012 by Juror#8

[KD in CA]

Social Security can be saved and it SHOULD be saved.

 

 

Let's hear your plan.

[CosmicBills]

Let's hear your plan.

My plan involves hammers. Lots and lots of hammers.

[OCinBuffalo]

Figured you couldn't entertain a debate without mudslinging and name-calling and your usual non-sense. Look at my post and look at your response.

 

This is completely unnecessary. If you wouldn't say it to someone's face, maybe you should have the manners enough not to type it in an otherwise non-caustic discussion online.

 

And I guarantee you wouldn't call me a "moron" to my face without provocation. There would be a significant misunderstanding if so brother.

 

Moving on...

You are new here, so I will train you: 1st, this is what we do. This place would be boring otherwise. The whole point is to provoke. More often than not, that provocation is what gets people to drop their annoying pretense, and say what they really think, as I have done with you on more than one occasion.

 

Your problem has been: what you really think seems to change over pages and pages of a thread.

 

2nd: Don't make assumptions. Somehow, I've been able to walk through city after city, stinking drunk, and nobody has ever mistaken me for a mark. Is that a coincidence? Now, you know that, and you also know: I work in IT, so calling each other much worse names than moron is basically WTF we do all day

You said that the only thing conservative about conservatives was "social stuff." You mentioned that as if it was easily reconcilable with your thesis.

 

It's unfortunate that you can't understand that.

Come now. Who wants to fix entitlements? Who wants to keep them the same? Certainly you can understand that Democrat behavior on entitlements is not in line with the behavior of a progressive. Just as much as conservative views on social stuff...is conservative. The distinction, and difference ought to be clear.

Said the unsophisticated prostitute at a bounded harmonic functions lecture.

This time you didn't babble, thus, this time you got a response.

So.......what does that have to do with trivializing, or otherwise breezing through the characterization with regard to the social policy agenda?

 

I never argued with the substance of your point. I just mentioned that there was more to it if you wanted to claim a thorough analysis. You're apparently arguing with yourself.

 

But if you want to tell me more about how your original point is pretty cool, you can. I'll just tell you again that it's not analytically thorough.

 

Note that I'm not saying that there is no soundness to your argument. Interestingly enough, I think your argument is pretty interesting and I've made a similar one before in a slightly different context. However, in a comprehensive analytical sense, there is no divorcing the social agenda from respective political parties as it pertains to a "conservative," or "progressive" characterization.

 

Simple. Dimple.

Right, because Republicans like Rudi Guliani don't exist in your fantasy, yet analytic, world.

 

The only people talking social issues are the Democrats...and dumbass Rick Santorum. If it wasn't for his nonsense, and forcing Romney to address the social stuff that we can't afford to care about, given the economy, and that scares women, Romney would be 10 pts up by now.

 

The only people who want to pretend that fiscal can't be separated from social, are the clowns like Santorum who have, personal, political agendas. Or...whatever happened, to the evangelicals who tried to co-opt the TEA party? Remember that goofy TEAvangelical book? Yeah, he was tossed out on his ass. The TEA party has no time or tolerance for religious zealotry attempting to keep them from their stated objectives.

 

This is a new electorate, and, the social people better get in line, or Obama will run them, over and over. Their days of running things have been over since Bush. Bush was their guy(and the neocon Jews), and the idiocy of "compassionate conservatism" and "let's blow billions on democracy wars" their ideas. That bill had to be paid, and the libertarians collected. If the fiscal policy/national security stuff can be attained, only then will their stuff get a look, and not before, and certainly not at the risk of giving the Democrats issues.

No, girlfriend, I heard the term bastard - understood the meaning of it - and then incorporated it where appropriate into my lexicon. I've never heard it used in the context that I use it and I certainly didn't hear it from an IT guy.

 

The only thing I hear from "IT guys" is a lot of "pleases," thanks yous" and " yes sir." Then I stroke them a check so they can get off my dick and get back to being 40 year old overweight losers who are too focused on their next IBFDLKJFVDKLJSFDJK++ certification to get some pussssssy or pay rent.

 

But as long as you dickless peons keep my firm's website up, you can continue with your little "profession" that is just an excuse for you to live in your mom's basement and continue meeting women in the Ukraine.

Blah...blah...blah..This all comes down to: you don't know any real enterprise IT/management consultants. Hint: none of us would be caught dead working at your law firm.

 

Certifications...are for those who you can't tell are money in the first minute of conversation. People hire us to evaluate the tool and the people who wrote it, not be trained on it. Certification. Absurd. If you can't take a readme off github and 20 minutes, and be able to write that code, you can't be me. Same is true if you can't visualize the DB, by looking at the GUI.

 

Where do I get my certification in: "Please tell us how to do what we have to do in 3 months, since we've already wasted 6, given our uniquely Fed up set of circumstances and requirements, so we don't all get fired"? Don't think Microsoft or Oracle has that class. Pretty sure I, and those like me, "certify" people in that.

 

The true test: ask any client who he gets rid of first, his consultant(real one), or his lawyer.

 

They will always answer lawyer, because you are a dime a dozen, while we know their entire business process and systems better than they do, and we can either, bring all their people together, or kick their asses individually, to get big things done. You...tell them stuff, or hand them pieces of paper. It's not even close.

[IDBillzFan]

My plan involves hammers. Lots and lots of hammers.

 

So in other words...if you had a hammer...

[CosmicBills]

So in other words...if you had a hammer...

[IDBillzFan]

The only thing that would make that video better is if one of the cars actually hit that dude.