CDZ Will You Take the Pledge?

[candycorn]

Not sure why a premium is placed on executive experience. The job is not close to being a CEO where you are the leader and the company follows you.

The Presidency is the administrative branch of government. The POTUS chooses or authorizes who heads all the divisions and branches of the government and is absolutely the CEO of the country charged with the responsibility to see that all functions of government are carried out competently, effectively, efficiently, and within the laws and initiatives passed by Congress. He also is the face on the 'company who inspires faith and confidence and sets the tone and standards of conduct. Some hands on experience with the skill sets necessary to do all that is invaluable.

Okay...so person X is elected in November of 2016. She will name her cabinet by January 2017. According to you this invaluable skillset is sparingly used again. Hardly the most important of any skills is picking folks to run the "divisions and branches" (they are called Departments BTW).

As for inspiring faith and confidence, a former coke user who was AWOL during 'nam and says "Bring it on" while we're invading nations that didn't attack us is hardly admirable traits despite any "executive experience" you gain during the 40 days you have to be a governor of Texas every 2 years.

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised when a presumed leftist uses whatever forum is offered to 'blame Bush' or 'bash Bush' yet again. Or deflects from the topic by yet another tiresome diversion into semantics. But oh well.

I have headed a large and complex organization in which I had oversight over the people who were in charge of various divisions, and I have also worked for such organizations both as a rank and file employee and as a division head. Many of us here have. And contrary to what anybody thinks, the CEO doesn't just hire or appoint somebody to those jobs and then pays no attention to how well those jobs are carried out and provides no leadership or direction for how they will be carried out. Or if he or she does, he/she is a very very bad/incompetent CEO.

Basically that is precisely what R. W. Reagan did. And he had corruption in nearly every department of his administration. No doubt that he was a great leader (not in my mind anyway) but he simply did not want to know most of the details of what his subordinates were doing. So you had Ollie Norths, Sam Pierces, Ed Mease, etc...

He was the governor of a state that requires the governor to show up every day. In Texas, they meet for 140 days every 2 years or some bizarre equation like that. GWB was a disaster as a governor (hemmed in by a true Texas Statesman named Bob Bullock) and a disaster as a President as his misadventure in Iraq, the $700B bailout, wanting to privatize SS, and massive NSA scandals all clearly indicate. I shouldn't be surprised that you don't want to talk about the most glaring example of the "you must be a governor to be a good POTUS" is utter rubbish; lesser lights such as yourself actually still think he is a Christian and a decent President.

 

[Foxfyre]

I wonder if anybody else has noticed that neither Reagan nor anybody named Bush is currently the POTUS of the USA? Or contrary to a previous post that a President doesn't need much in the way of an executive skill set, the way Reagan and Bush are being criticized is not exactly a stellar endorsement for electing an incompetent CEO to the Presidency?

 

[Dogmaphobe]

My bigger concern is dynastic politics as represented by the likes of Hillary, Jeb and Rand. I'm not much in favor of an oligarchy.

I don't worry too much about whether they were a governor or not, but if a candidate emerges who is much like a certain fellow who was elected governor of New York in 1898, I would certainly give them serious consideration.

 

[candycorn]

I wonder if anybody else has noticed that neither Reagan nor anybody named Bush is currently the POTUS of the USA? Or contrary to a previous post that a President doesn't need much in the way of an executive skill set, the way Reagan and Bush are being criticized is not exactly a stellar endorsement for electing an incompetent CEO to the Presidency?

Not sure if you were talking about me but I wasn't criticizing Reagan...in fact I called him a great leader. Leaders need not know every detail of their administration and he didn't. Some of his cabinet secretaries took advantage.

I know the only purpose in some people's sad, pathetic life is to bash the current President in any way shape and form they can. These people are the most pathetic among us.

I know Bush was incompetent and provided the proof that he was by the results. I'm glad you agree with me since I'm obviously correct and you were obviously wrong.

A CEO skillset of turning a profit is probably the most incongruent thing to making the government work for the people....I'm sorry you disagree but it's the truth.

 

[Foxfyre]

I wonder if anybody else has noticed that neither Reagan nor anybody named Bush is currently the POTUS of the USA? Or contrary to a previous post that a President doesn't need much in the way of an executive skill set, the way Reagan and Bush are being criticized is not exactly a stellar endorsement for electing an incompetent CEO to the Presidency?

Not sure if you were talking about me but I wasn't criticizing Reagan...in fact I called him a great leader. Leaders need not know every detail of their administration and he didn't. Some of his cabinet secretaries took advantage.

I know the only purpose in some people's sad, pathetic life is to bash the current President in any way shape and form they can. These people are the most pathetic among us.

I know Bush was incompetent and provided the proof that he was by the results. I'm glad you agree with me since I'm obviously correct and you were obviously wrong.

A CEO skillset of turning a profit is probably the most incongruent thing to making the government work for the people....I'm sorry you disagree but it's the truth.

I didn't agree with you at all, other than I agree that Reagan was a great leader.

I was just commenting on the irony of the suggestion that the Reagan administration was flawed because Reagan 'wasn't on top of things' and that the Bush administration was flawed because 'Bush was incompetent' and this was right after a statement that incompetence (or lack of experience) in the current President doesn't matter much because the President doesn't have much to do.

That kind of dichotomy makes thinking people go ARRGH!!! I think. Either the competency of the President matters or it doesn't matter. But you can't have it one way in past administrations and another way in the current one and make much sense.

 

[candycorn]

I wonder if anybody else has noticed that neither Reagan nor anybody named Bush is currently the POTUS of the USA? Or contrary to a previous post that a President doesn't need much in the way of an executive skill set, the way Reagan and Bush are being criticized is not exactly a stellar endorsement for electing an incompetent CEO to the Presidency?

Not sure if you were talking about me but I wasn't criticizing Reagan...in fact I called him a great leader. Leaders need not know every detail of their administration and he didn't. Some of his cabinet secretaries took advantage.

I know the only purpose in some people's sad, pathetic life is to bash the current President in any way shape and form they can. These people are the most pathetic among us.

I know Bush was incompetent and provided the proof that he was by the results. I'm glad you agree with me since I'm obviously correct and you were obviously wrong.

A CEO skillset of turning a profit is probably the most incongruent thing to making the government work for the people....I'm sorry you disagree but it's the truth.

I didn't agree with you at all, other than I agree that Reagan was a great leader.

I was just commenting on the irony of the suggestion that the Reagan administration was flawed because Reagan 'wasn't on top of things'

Speaking of Dichotomy:

Here is what you JUST SAID:

I have headed a large and complex organization in which I had oversight over the people who were in charge of various divisions, and I have also worked for such organizations both as a rank and file employee and as a division head. Many of us here have. And contrary to what anybody thinks, the CEO doesn't just hire or appoint somebody to those jobs and then pays no attention to how well those jobs are carried out and provides no leadership or direction for how they will be carried out. Or if he or she does, he/she is a very very bad/incompetent CEO.

Ronald Reagan did precisely that...appointed people and they almost brought down his government because he did not pay attention to anything they did. Once he was hauled into court for a deposition, he said "I don't recall" or "I don't remember" to an alarming amount of questions about what Ollie, Ed, Sam, Poindexter et. al. were doing.

Please read up on some history prior to trying to comment on it.

and that the Bush administration was flawed because 'Bush was incompetent' and this was right after a statement that incompetence (or lack of experience) in the current President doesn't matter much because the President doesn't have much to do.

A. I never said they don't have much to do. I did say that when a CEO makes decisions, they are final and everyone under him or her simply work to implement those plans. America doesn't work like that. It's a different skill set. If I'm wrong, you'd do whatever Obama asked you to do....I don't see that happening; do you?

B. Bush was incompetent.
We went to war to stop terrorism which didn't work. He didn't find the leader of the organization that attacked us. In fact, gave up on it to fight a war in Iraq which was unwinnable. He admitted that there were no WMDs. Meanwhile, his "hands off" approach to his duty produced a bubble that almost brought down the whole economy.

That kind of dichotomy makes thinking people go ARRGH!!! I think. Either the competency of the President matters or it doesn't matter. But you can't have it one way in past administrations and another way in the current one and make much sense.

Obama is much more like Reagan than GWB was. A great communicator who has a sucky management style. The only difference is that you guys are ready to tar and feather him for mis-steps while Reagan is remembered fondly for his Departments being mis-managed.

 

[Moonglow]

I am voting for the next candidate I can pick by using a Cartesian duality formula upon...

 

[Foxfyre]

I wonder if anybody else has noticed that neither Reagan nor anybody named Bush is currently the POTUS of the USA? Or contrary to a previous post that a President doesn't need much in the way of an executive skill set, the way Reagan and Bush are being criticized is not exactly a stellar endorsement for electing an incompetent CEO to the Presidency?

Not sure if you were talking about me but I wasn't criticizing Reagan...in fact I called him a great leader. Leaders need not know every detail of their administration and he didn't. Some of his cabinet secretaries took advantage.

I know the only purpose in some people's sad, pathetic life is to bash the current President in any way shape and form they can. These people are the most pathetic among us.

I know Bush was incompetent and provided the proof that he was by the results. I'm glad you agree with me since I'm obviously correct and you were obviously wrong.

A CEO skillset of turning a profit is probably the most incongruent thing to making the government work for the people....I'm sorry you disagree but it's the truth.

I didn't agree with you at all, other than I agree that Reagan was a great leader.

I was just commenting on the irony of the suggestion that the Reagan administration was flawed because Reagan 'wasn't on top of things'

Speaking of Dichotomy:

Here is what you JUST SAID:

I have headed a large and complex organization in which I had oversight over the people who were in charge of various divisions, and I have also worked for such organizations both as a rank and file employee and as a division head. Many of us here have. And contrary to what anybody thinks, the CEO doesn't just hire or appoint somebody to those jobs and then pays no attention to how well those jobs are carried out and provides no leadership or direction for how they will be carried out. Or if he or she does, he/she is a very very bad/incompetent CEO.

Ronald Reagan did precisely that...appointed people and they almost brought down his government because he did not pay attention to anything they did. Once he was hauled into court for a deposition, he said "I don't recall" or "I don't remember" to an alarming amount of questions about what Ollie, Ed, Sam, Poindexter et. al. were doing.

Please read up on some history prior to trying to comment on it.

and that the Bush administration was flawed because 'Bush was incompetent' and this was right after a statement that incompetence (or lack of experience) in the current President doesn't matter much because the President doesn't have much to do.

A. I never said they don't have much to do. I did say that when a CEO makes decisions, they are final and everyone under him or her simply work to implement those plans. America doesn't work like that. It's a different skill set. If I'm wrong, you'd do whatever Obama asked you to do....I don't see that happening; do you?

B. Bush was incompetent.
We went to war to stop terrorism which didn't work. He didn't find the leader of the organization that attacked us. In fact, gave up on it to fight a war in Iraq which was unwinnable. He admitted that there were no WMDs. Meanwhile, his "hands off" approach to his duty produced a bubble that almost brought down the whole economy.

That kind of dichotomy makes thinking people go ARRGH!!! I think. Either the competency of the President matters or it doesn't matter. But you can't have it one way in past administrations and another way in the current one and make much sense.

Obama is much more like Reagan than GWB was. A great communicator who has a sucky management style. The only difference is that you guys are ready to tar and feather him for mis-steps while Reagan is remembered fondly for his Departments being mis-managed.

I know the history probably much more than the average bear. And I also know how to read and understand a point that is being made. And I choose not to be diverted from the point I am discussing. I will not agree that Obama is ANYTHING like Reagan in either style or substance.

 

[candycorn]

I wonder if anybody else has noticed that neither Reagan nor anybody named Bush is currently the POTUS of the USA? Or contrary to a previous post that a President doesn't need much in the way of an executive skill set, the way Reagan and Bush are being criticized is not exactly a stellar endorsement for electing an incompetent CEO to the Presidency?

Not sure if you were talking about me but I wasn't criticizing Reagan...in fact I called him a great leader. Leaders need not know every detail of their administration and he didn't. Some of his cabinet secretaries took advantage.

I know the only purpose in some people's sad, pathetic life is to bash the current President in any way shape and form they can. These people are the most pathetic among us.

I know Bush was incompetent and provided the proof that he was by the results. I'm glad you agree with me since I'm obviously correct and you were obviously wrong.

A CEO skillset of turning a profit is probably the most incongruent thing to making the government work for the people....I'm sorry you disagree but it's the truth.

I didn't agree with you at all, other than I agree that Reagan was a great leader.

I was just commenting on the irony of the suggestion that the Reagan administration was flawed because Reagan 'wasn't on top of things'

Speaking of Dichotomy:

Here is what you JUST SAID:

I have headed a large and complex organization in which I had oversight over the people who were in charge of various divisions, and I have also worked for such organizations both as a rank and file employee and as a division head. Many of us here have. And contrary to what anybody thinks, the CEO doesn't just hire or appoint somebody to those jobs and then pays no attention to how well those jobs are carried out and provides no leadership or direction for how they will be carried out. Or if he or she does, he/she is a very very bad/incompetent CEO.

Ronald Reagan did precisely that...appointed people and they almost brought down his government because he did not pay attention to anything they did. Once he was hauled into court for a deposition, he said "I don't recall" or "I don't remember" to an alarming amount of questions about what Ollie, Ed, Sam, Poindexter et. al. were doing.

Please read up on some history prior to trying to comment on it.

and that the Bush administration was flawed because 'Bush was incompetent' and this was right after a statement that incompetence (or lack of experience) in the current President doesn't matter much because the President doesn't have much to do.

A. I never said they don't have much to do. I did say that when a CEO makes decisions, they are final and everyone under him or her simply work to implement those plans. America doesn't work like that. It's a different skill set. If I'm wrong, you'd do whatever Obama asked you to do....I don't see that happening; do you?

B. Bush was incompetent.
We went to war to stop terrorism which didn't work. He didn't find the leader of the organization that attacked us. In fact, gave up on it to fight a war in Iraq which was unwinnable. He admitted that there were no WMDs. Meanwhile, his "hands off" approach to his duty produced a bubble that almost brought down the whole economy.

That kind of dichotomy makes thinking people go ARRGH!!! I think. Either the competency of the President matters or it doesn't matter. But you can't have it one way in past administrations and another way in the current one and make much sense.

Obama is much more like Reagan than GWB was. A great communicator who has a sucky management style. The only difference is that you guys are ready to tar and feather him for mis-steps while Reagan is remembered fondly for his Departments being mis-managed.

I know the history probably much more than the average bear.

Such is not being demonstrated.

And I also know how to read and understand a point that is being made.

Again, no evidence of that has been presented. In fact, you're demonstrating quite the opposite.

And I choose not to be diverted from the point I am discussing.

Likewise. Jack Welch said do X and everyone at GE did X. Read his book if you don't believe me. That doesn't happend with Presidents.

I will not agree that Obama is ANYTHING like Reagan in either style or substance.

And you are wrong; as I demonstrated. The HUD scandal, Iran Contra, etc... under Reagan is precisely the same as the IRS and VA scandals under Obama. Neither Chief Executive was paying attention to what was going on in the administration under their name.

Your unwillingness to see this doesn't have any effect on the facts...just on how silly you appear to those who read this...

 

[Foxfyre]

I wonder if anybody else has noticed that neither Reagan nor anybody named Bush is currently the POTUS of the USA? Or contrary to a previous post that a President doesn't need much in the way of an executive skill set, the way Reagan and Bush are being criticized is not exactly a stellar endorsement for electing an incompetent CEO to the Presidency?

Not sure if you were talking about me but I wasn't criticizing Reagan...in fact I called him a great leader. Leaders need not know every detail of their administration and he didn't. Some of his cabinet secretaries took advantage.

I know the only purpose in some people's sad, pathetic life is to bash the current President in any way shape and form they can. These people are the most pathetic among us.

I know Bush was incompetent and provided the proof that he was by the results. I'm glad you agree with me since I'm obviously correct and you were obviously wrong.

A CEO skillset of turning a profit is probably the most incongruent thing to making the government work for the people....I'm sorry you disagree but it's the truth.

I didn't agree with you at all, other than I agree that Reagan was a great leader.

I was just commenting on the irony of the suggestion that the Reagan administration was flawed because Reagan 'wasn't on top of things'

Speaking of Dichotomy:

Here is what you JUST SAID:

I have headed a large and complex organization in which I had oversight over the people who were in charge of various divisions, and I have also worked for such organizations both as a rank and file employee and as a division head. Many of us here have. And contrary to what anybody thinks, the CEO doesn't just hire or appoint somebody to those jobs and then pays no attention to how well those jobs are carried out and provides no leadership or direction for how they will be carried out. Or if he or she does, he/she is a very very bad/incompetent CEO.

Ronald Reagan did precisely that...appointed people and they almost brought down his government because he did not pay attention to anything they did. Once he was hauled into court for a deposition, he said "I don't recall" or "I don't remember" to an alarming amount of questions about what Ollie, Ed, Sam, Poindexter et. al. were doing.

Please read up on some history prior to trying to comment on it.

and that the Bush administration was flawed because 'Bush was incompetent' and this was right after a statement that incompetence (or lack of experience) in the current President doesn't matter much because the President doesn't have much to do.

A. I never said they don't have much to do. I did say that when a CEO makes decisions, they are final and everyone under him or her simply work to implement those plans. America doesn't work like that. It's a different skill set. If I'm wrong, you'd do whatever Obama asked you to do....I don't see that happening; do you?

B. Bush was incompetent.
We went to war to stop terrorism which didn't work. He didn't find the leader of the organization that attacked us. In fact, gave up on it to fight a war in Iraq which was unwinnable. He admitted that there were no WMDs. Meanwhile, his "hands off" approach to his duty produced a bubble that almost brought down the whole economy.

That kind of dichotomy makes thinking people go ARRGH!!! I think. Either the competency of the President matters or it doesn't matter. But you can't have it one way in past administrations and another way in the current one and make much sense.

Obama is much more like Reagan than GWB was. A great communicator who has a sucky management style. The only difference is that you guys are ready to tar and feather him for mis-steps while Reagan is remembered fondly for his Departments being mis-managed.

I know the history probably much more than the average bear.

Such is not being demonstrated.

And I also know how to read and understand a point that is being made.

Again, no evidence of that has been presented. In fact, you're demonstrating quite the opposite.

And I choose not to be diverted from the point I am discussing.

Likewise. Jack Welch said do X and everyone at GE did X. Read his book if you don't believe me. That doesn't happend with Presidents.

I will not agree that Obama is ANYTHING like Reagan in either style or substance.

And you are wrong; as I demonstrated. The HUD scandal, Iran Contra, etc... under Reagan is precisely the same as the IRS and VA scandals under Obama. Neither Chief Executive was paying attention to what was going on in the administration under their name.

Your unwillingness to see this doesn't have any effect on the facts...just on how silly you appear to those who read this...

Some people understand that anecdotal illustrations are pretty weak evidence. If we compared notes we would probably find numerous areas where we each made the same decision about something or voted for the same initiative or had similar problems that we had to deal with or similar things that we forgot along the way. And that would not in anybody's wildest imagination suggest that you and I are anything alike or agree on much of anything, and it certainly would not be evidence of that we share a common management style.

 

[candycorn]

Not sure if you were talking about me but I wasn't criticizing Reagan...in fact I called him a great leader. Leaders need not know every detail of their administration and he didn't. Some of his cabinet secretaries took advantage.

I know the only purpose in some people's sad, pathetic life is to bash the current President in any way shape and form they can. These people are the most pathetic among us.

I know Bush was incompetent and provided the proof that he was by the results. I'm glad you agree with me since I'm obviously correct and you were obviously wrong.

A CEO skillset of turning a profit is probably the most incongruent thing to making the government work for the people....I'm sorry you disagree but it's the truth.

I didn't agree with you at all, other than I agree that Reagan was a great leader.

I was just commenting on the irony of the suggestion that the Reagan administration was flawed because Reagan 'wasn't on top of things'

Speaking of Dichotomy:

Here is what you JUST SAID:

I have headed a large and complex organization in which I had oversight over the people who were in charge of various divisions, and I have also worked for such organizations both as a rank and file employee and as a division head. Many of us here have. And contrary to what anybody thinks, the CEO doesn't just hire or appoint somebody to those jobs and then pays no attention to how well those jobs are carried out and provides no leadership or direction for how they will be carried out. Or if he or she does, he/she is a very very bad/incompetent CEO.

Ronald Reagan did precisely that...appointed people and they almost brought down his government because he did not pay attention to anything they did. Once he was hauled into court for a deposition, he said "I don't recall" or "I don't remember" to an alarming amount of questions about what Ollie, Ed, Sam, Poindexter et. al. were doing.

Please read up on some history prior to trying to comment on it.

and that the Bush administration was flawed because 'Bush was incompetent' and this was right after a statement that incompetence (or lack of experience) in the current President doesn't matter much because the President doesn't have much to do.

A. I never said they don't have much to do. I did say that when a CEO makes decisions, they are final and everyone under him or her simply work to implement those plans. America doesn't work like that. It's a different skill set. If I'm wrong, you'd do whatever Obama asked you to do....I don't see that happening; do you?

B. Bush was incompetent.
We went to war to stop terrorism which didn't work. He didn't find the leader of the organization that attacked us. In fact, gave up on it to fight a war in Iraq which was unwinnable. He admitted that there were no WMDs. Meanwhile, his "hands off" approach to his duty produced a bubble that almost brought down the whole economy.

That kind of dichotomy makes thinking people go ARRGH!!! I think. Either the competency of the President matters or it doesn't matter. But you can't have it one way in past administrations and another way in the current one and make much sense.

Obama is much more like Reagan than GWB was. A great communicator who has a sucky management style. The only difference is that you guys are ready to tar and feather him for mis-steps while Reagan is remembered fondly for his Departments being mis-managed.

I know the history probably much more than the average bear.

Such is not being demonstrated.

And I also know how to read and understand a point that is being made.

Again, no evidence of that has been presented. In fact, you're demonstrating quite the opposite.

And I choose not to be diverted from the point I am discussing.

Likewise. Jack Welch said do X and everyone at GE did X. Read his book if you don't believe me. That doesn't happend with Presidents.

I will not agree that Obama is ANYTHING like Reagan in either style or substance.

And you are wrong; as I demonstrated. The HUD scandal, Iran Contra, etc... under Reagan is precisely the same as the IRS and VA scandals under Obama. Neither Chief Executive was paying attention to what was going on in the administration under their name.

Your unwillingness to see this doesn't have any effect on the facts...just on how silly you appear to those who read this...

Some people understand that anecdotal illustrations are pretty weak evidence. If we compared notes we would probably find numerous areas where we each made the same decision about something or voted for the same initiative or had similar problems that we had to deal with or similar things that we forgot along the way. And that would not in anybody's wildest imagination suggest that you and I are anything alike or agree on much of anything, and it certainly would not be evidence of that we share a common management style.

Anecdotal illustrations? Thanks for yet another reason to chuckle at your retort.

No dear, I gave you examples. Obama and Reagan have much the management style. They hired people to do jobs and in some cases they let them down. In other cases, they did a good job. I know there is a conservative hatred of Obama for his skin color and admitting this glaring truth is tantamount to blasphemy. Since you cannot cite any concrete differences in those scandals...we have to assume it's a matter of skin color in your case as well that is fueling your denial of that glaring truth.

I think Reagan was a better leader than Obama but the times were much different and we trusted the government a tad more then. After Bush lied to the parents of Pat Tillman, sexed up the intel to have thousands of America's best and the brightest killed for no reason, and Obama has allowed the too big to fail banks to remain too big to fail....its easy to see why.

 

[Foxfyre]

I didn't agree with you at all, other than I agree that Reagan was a great leader.

I was just commenting on the irony of the suggestion that the Reagan administration was flawed because Reagan 'wasn't on top of things'

Speaking of Dichotomy:

Here is what you JUST SAID:

I have headed a large and complex organization in which I had oversight over the people who were in charge of various divisions, and I have also worked for such organizations both as a rank and file employee and as a division head. Many of us here have. And contrary to what anybody thinks, the CEO doesn't just hire or appoint somebody to those jobs and then pays no attention to how well those jobs are carried out and provides no leadership or direction for how they will be carried out. Or if he or she does, he/she is a very very bad/incompetent CEO.

Ronald Reagan did precisely that...appointed people and they almost brought down his government because he did not pay attention to anything they did. Once he was hauled into court for a deposition, he said "I don't recall" or "I don't remember" to an alarming amount of questions about what Ollie, Ed, Sam, Poindexter et. al. were doing.

Please read up on some history prior to trying to comment on it.

and that the Bush administration was flawed because 'Bush was incompetent' and this was right after a statement that incompetence (or lack of experience) in the current President doesn't matter much because the President doesn't have much to do.

A. I never said they don't have much to do. I did say that when a CEO makes decisions, they are final and everyone under him or her simply work to implement those plans. America doesn't work like that. It's a different skill set. If I'm wrong, you'd do whatever Obama asked you to do....I don't see that happening; do you?

B. Bush was incompetent.
We went to war to stop terrorism which didn't work. He didn't find the leader of the organization that attacked us. In fact, gave up on it to fight a war in Iraq which was unwinnable. He admitted that there were no WMDs. Meanwhile, his "hands off" approach to his duty produced a bubble that almost brought down the whole economy.

That kind of dichotomy makes thinking people go ARRGH!!! I think. Either the competency of the President matters or it doesn't matter. But you can't have it one way in past administrations and another way in the current one and make much sense.

Obama is much more like Reagan than GWB was. A great communicator who has a sucky management style. The only difference is that you guys are ready to tar and feather him for mis-steps while Reagan is remembered fondly for his Departments being mis-managed.

I know the history probably much more than the average bear.

Such is not being demonstrated.

And I also know how to read and understand a point that is being made.

Again, no evidence of that has been presented. In fact, you're demonstrating quite the opposite.

And I choose not to be diverted from the point I am discussing.

Likewise. Jack Welch said do X and everyone at GE did X. Read his book if you don't believe me. That doesn't happend with Presidents.

I will not agree that Obama is ANYTHING like Reagan in either style or substance.

And you are wrong; as I demonstrated. The HUD scandal, Iran Contra, etc... under Reagan is precisely the same as the IRS and VA scandals under Obama. Neither Chief Executive was paying attention to what was going on in the administration under their name.

Your unwillingness to see this doesn't have any effect on the facts...just on how silly you appear to those who read this...

Some people understand that anecdotal illustrations are pretty weak evidence. If we compared notes we would probably find numerous areas where we each made the same decision about something or voted for the same initiative or had similar problems that we had to deal with or similar things that we forgot along the way. And that would not in anybody's wildest imagination suggest that you and I are anything alike or agree on much of anything, and it certainly would not be evidence of that we share a common management style.

Anecdotal illustrations? Thanks for yet another reason to chuckle at your retort.

No dear, I gave you examples. Obama and Reagan have much the management style. They hired people to do jobs and in some cases they let them down. In other cases, they did a good job. I know there is a conservative hatred of Obama for his skin color and admitting this glaring truth is tantamount to blasphemy. Since you cannot cite any concrete differences in those scandals...we have to assume it's a matter of skin color in your case as well that is fueling your denial of that glaring truth.

I think Reagan was a better leader than Obama but the times were much different and we trusted the government a tad more then. After Bush lied to the parents of Pat Tillman, sexed up the intel to have thousands of America's best and the brightest killed for no reason, and Obama has allowed the too big to fail banks to remain too big to fail....its easy to see why.

Do have a pleasant evening.

 

[candycorn]

Speaking of Dichotomy:

Here is what you JUST SAID:

I have headed a large and complex organization in which I had oversight over the people who were in charge of various divisions, and I have also worked for such organizations both as a rank and file employee and as a division head. Many of us here have. And contrary to what anybody thinks, the CEO doesn't just hire or appoint somebody to those jobs and then pays no attention to how well those jobs are carried out and provides no leadership or direction for how they will be carried out. Or if he or she does, he/she is a very very bad/incompetent CEO.

Ronald Reagan did precisely that...appointed people and they almost brought down his government because he did not pay attention to anything they did. Once he was hauled into court for a deposition, he said "I don't recall" or "I don't remember" to an alarming amount of questions about what Ollie, Ed, Sam, Poindexter et. al. were doing.

Please read up on some history prior to trying to comment on it.



A. I never said they don't have much to do. I did say that when a CEO makes decisions, they are final and everyone under him or her simply work to implement those plans. America doesn't work like that. It's a different skill set. If I'm wrong, you'd do whatever Obama asked you to do....I don't see that happening; do you?

B. Bush was incompetent.
We went to war to stop terrorism which didn't work. He didn't find the leader of the organization that attacked us. In fact, gave up on it to fight a war in Iraq which was unwinnable. He admitted that there were no WMDs. Meanwhile, his "hands off" approach to his duty produced a bubble that almost brought down the whole economy.


Obama is much more like Reagan than GWB was. A great communicator who has a sucky management style. The only difference is that you guys are ready to tar and feather him for mis-steps while Reagan is remembered fondly for his Departments being mis-managed.

I know the history probably much more than the average bear.

Such is not being demonstrated.

And I also know how to read and understand a point that is being made.

Again, no evidence of that has been presented. In fact, you're demonstrating quite the opposite.

And I choose not to be diverted from the point I am discussing.

Likewise. Jack Welch said do X and everyone at GE did X. Read his book if you don't believe me. That doesn't happend with Presidents.

I will not agree that Obama is ANYTHING like Reagan in either style or substance.

And you are wrong; as I demonstrated. The HUD scandal, Iran Contra, etc... under Reagan is precisely the same as the IRS and VA scandals under Obama. Neither Chief Executive was paying attention to what was going on in the administration under their name.

Your unwillingness to see this doesn't have any effect on the facts...just on how silly you appear to those who read this...

Some people understand that anecdotal illustrations are pretty weak evidence. If we compared notes we would probably find numerous areas where we each made the same decision about something or voted for the same initiative or had similar problems that we had to deal with or similar things that we forgot along the way. And that would not in anybody's wildest imagination suggest that you and I are anything alike or agree on much of anything, and it certainly would not be evidence of that we share a common management style.

Anecdotal illustrations? Thanks for yet another reason to chuckle at your retort.

No dear, I gave you examples. Obama and Reagan have much the management style. They hired people to do jobs and in some cases they let them down. In other cases, they did a good job. I know there is a conservative hatred of Obama for his skin color and admitting this glaring truth is tantamount to blasphemy. Since you cannot cite any concrete differences in those scandals...we have to assume it's a matter of skin color in your case as well that is fueling your denial of that glaring truth.

I think Reagan was a better leader than Obama but the times were much different and we trusted the government a tad more then. After Bush lied to the parents of Pat Tillman, sexed up the intel to have thousands of America's best and the brightest killed for no reason, and Obama has allowed the too big to fail banks to remain too big to fail....its easy to see why.

Do have a pleasant evening.

And you do the same.

 

[Foxfyre]

First, let's talk about Presidents in the modern era (FDR onward). Secondly, let's not confuse specific policies with administrative effectiveness. Third, let's acknowledge unique circumstances (i.e., WW2) where equivalent executive experience can be gained.

That being said, it is evident that those without such experience (e.g., JFK) who are newly elected to the Presidency face steeper learning curves than former Governors or even those with Vice Presidential experience.

Even Hillary would have greater experience than did our current President, who is the slowest learner yet. The question is whether we can afford another one.

The problem with Hillary is that the experience she can cite really doesn't qualify her to be POTUS any more than the limited experience Obama can cite qualified him. And she hasn't exactly been the sharpest tack in the box either so far as learning curves go.

Going all the way back to her brief stint as a federal employee to her tenure at the Rose Law Firm, her eight years as First Lady, her time in the U.S. Senate, and her years as Secretary of State, she can't point to much of anything that would look like much of a success to anybody. From the Rose Law Firm on, she got all those jobs because she was married to Bill Clinton who DID have management skill sets and utiliized them pretty well.

And what jobs/positions can Barack Obama point to as something he qualified for and accomplished himself in? He got them all because he was being groomed by the Chicago machine and, like Hillary, he can't point to much of anything that would look like much of a success to anybody. You get the feeling he is desperately looking for something, anything, that will become an attractive legacy for him. I'm pretty sure he has seen the handwriting on the wall and knows that Obamacare isn't going to be it.

How about we stop settling for 'feel good' candidates, and actually start demanding that the POTUS be qualified for the job?

 

[whitehall]

Let's face it: People with little or no Executive experience make lousy Presidents. You might cite Harry Truman as an exception, but he came into that office within an administration that had been running the country for over 12 years. Don't forget, Lyndon Johnson's foray into Viet Nam makes the Iraq War look like child's play.
Not that all Governors make good Presidents (Jimmy Carter comes to mind), but at least they come into office with some idea of how to assemble a Cabinet. In order to prevent another disastrous Presidency, I take the following pledge:

I will not vote for any Presidential candidate who has not previously been Governor of a State.

Anyone care to join me?

Do you even know anything about Harry Truman beyond propaganda? We lost as many Troops in Korea in three years, thanks to Truman's timid inexperience, as we lost in Vietnam and settled for an embarrassing "truce" that kept Americans in Korea for the next half century and beyond.

 

[candycorn]

First, let's talk about Presidents in the modern era (FDR onward). Secondly, let's not confuse specific policies with administrative effectiveness. Third, let's acknowledge unique circumstances (i.e., WW2) where equivalent executive experience can be gained.

That being said, it is evident that those without such experience (e.g., JFK) who are newly elected to the Presidency face steeper learning curves than former Governors or even those with Vice Presidential experience.

Even Hillary would have greater experience than did our current President, who is the slowest learner yet. The question is whether we can afford another one.

The problem with Hillary is that the experience she can cite really doesn't qualify her to be POTUS any more than the limited experience Obama can cite qualified him. And she hasn't exactly been the sharpest tack in the box either so far as learning curves go.

Going all the way back to her brief stint as a federal employee to her tenure at the Rose Law Firm, her eight years as First Lady, her time in the U.S. Senate, and her years as Secretary of State, she can't point to much of anything that would look like much of a success to anybody. From the Rose Law Firm on, she got all those jobs because she was married to Bill Clinton who DID have management skill sets and utiliized them pretty well.

And what jobs/positions can Barack Obama point to as something he qualified for and accomplished himself in? He got them all because he was being groomed by the Chicago machine and, like Hillary, he can't point to much of anything that would look like much of a success to anybody. You get the feeling he is desperately looking for something, anything, that will become an attractive legacy for him. I'm pretty sure he has seen the handwriting on the wall and knows that Obamacare isn't going to be it.

How about we stop settling for 'feel good' candidates, and actually start demanding that the POTUS be qualified for the job?

Bush showed having a governor job is no qualification. The CEO skillset is not what the Presidency is all about.

As for Hillary, the SoS slot is a great primer for the Presidency since foreign relations is a big part of the job. As for accomplishments as SoS, what SoS had great accomplishments at the post other than fulfilling the foreign policy of the President? Please name someone who stood out...and why.

Hillary will make a good POTUS.

 

[candycorn]

Let's face it: People with little or no Executive experience make lousy Presidents. You might cite Harry Truman as an exception, but he came into that office within an administration that had been running the country for over 12 years. Don't forget, Lyndon Johnson's foray into Viet Nam makes the Iraq War look like child's play.
Not that all Governors make good Presidents (Jimmy Carter comes to mind), but at least they come into office with some idea of how to assemble a Cabinet. In order to prevent another disastrous Presidency, I take the following pledge:

I will not vote for any Presidential candidate who has not previously been Governor of a State.

Anyone care to join me?

Do you even know anything about Harry Truman beyond propaganda? We lost as many Troops in Korea in three years, thanks to Truman's timid inexperience, as we lost in Vietnam and settled for an embarrassing "truce" that kept Americans in Korea for the next half century and beyond.

Not sure about the circumstances of the Korean Conflict. I doubt you can really pin 50 years of us being there on Truman however.

 

[candycorn]

First, let's talk about Presidents in the modern era (FDR onward). Secondly, let's not confuse specific policies with administrative effectiveness. Third, let's acknowledge unique circumstances (i.e., WW2) where equivalent executive experience can be gained.

That being said, it is evident that those without such experience (e.g., JFK) who are newly elected to the Presidency face steeper learning curves than former Governors or even those with Vice Presidential experience.

Even Hillary would have greater experience than did our current President, who is the slowest learner yet. The question is whether we can afford another one.

The problem with Hillary is that the experience she can cite really doesn't qualify her to be POTUS any more than the limited experience Obama can cite qualified him. And she hasn't exactly been the sharpest tack in the box either so far as learning curves go.

Going all the way back to her brief stint as a federal employee to her tenure at the Rose Law Firm, her eight years as First Lady, her time in the U.S. Senate, and her years as Secretary of State, she can't point to much of anything that would look like much of a success to anybody. From the Rose Law Firm on, she got all those jobs because she was married to Bill Clinton who DID have management skill sets and utiliized them pretty well.

And what jobs/positions can Barack Obama point to as something he qualified for and accomplished himself in? He got them all because he was being groomed by the Chicago machine and, like Hillary, he can't point to much of anything that would look like much of a success to anybody. You get the feeling he is desperately looking for something, anything, that will become an attractive legacy for him. I'm pretty sure he has seen the handwriting on the wall and knows that Obamacare isn't going to be it.

How about we stop settling for 'feel good' candidates, and actually start demanding that the POTUS be qualified for the job?

Bush showed having a governor job is no qualification. The CEO skillset is not what the Presidency is all about.

As for Hillary, the SoS slot is a great primer for the Presidency since foreign relations is a big part of the job. As for accomplishments as SoS, what SoS had great accomplishments at the post other than fulfilling the foreign policy of the President? Please name someone who stood out...and why.

Hillary will make a good POTUS.

Correction: Will be a good POTUS.

 

[jwoodie]

Bush showed having a governor job is no qualification. The CEO skillset is not what the Presidency is all about.

As for Hillary, the SoS slot is a great primer for the Presidency since foreign relations is a big part of the job. As for accomplishments as SoS, what SoS had great accomplishments at the post other than fulfilling the foreign policy of the President? Please name someone who stood out...and why.

Hillary will make a good POTUS.

Other than reiterating your mindless cheerleading for Hillary, do you have anything of value to contribute?

 

[Foxfyre]

Let's face it: People with little or no Executive experience make lousy Presidents. You might cite Harry Truman as an exception, but he came into that office within an administration that had been running the country for over 12 years. Don't forget, Lyndon Johnson's foray into Viet Nam makes the Iraq War look like child's play.
Not that all Governors make good Presidents (Jimmy Carter comes to mind), but at least they come into office with some idea of how to assemble a Cabinet. In order to prevent another disastrous Presidency, I take the following pledge:

I will not vote for any Presidential candidate who has not previously been Governor of a State.

Anyone care to join me?

Do you even know anything about Harry Truman beyond propaganda? We lost as many Troops in Korea in three years, thanks to Truman's timid inexperience, as we lost in Vietnam and settled for an embarrassing "truce" that kept Americans in Korea for the next half century and beyond.

Gentle correction. The 50+ thousand Korean War deaths was popularly circulated for some years, but historians discovered it didn't include only Korean War casualties but rather all American military deaths around the world. When the figures were amended, they were still unconscionably horrendous but were some less:
How Many Americans Died In Korea - CBS News

You are correct though that the Korean War was mismanaged about as badly as the Iraqi nation building and resulted in tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths while leaving in place a angry, heavily armed enemy with a serious grudge.