OFF-THE-CUFF remarks regarding the next PRES.

Doniston... I will amend the previous a bit.... I do like Richardson as well, but somehow I doubt we will be seeing him as the nominee. Maybe Bloomberg will pick him up as his VP. :)
 
Superfreak said:
Doniston... I will amend the previous a bit.... I do like Richardson as well, but somehow I doubt we will be seeing him as the nominee. Maybe Bloomberg will pick him up as his VP. :)
Click to expand...
I am interested in Bloomberg, Hagel, and Richardson (the makings of a third party) However, this is still about individuals instead of concern of the governing principles involved. that was what I wanted to hear about.
 
doniston said:
I am interested in Bloomberg, Hagel, and Richardson (the makings of a third party) However, this is still about individuals instead of concern of the governing principles involved. that was what I wanted to hear about.
Click to expand...

I like all three as well. As for your request....

President should have a working knowledge of economics, should have a fundamental understanding of the Constitution and the concept of States rights. He/She should be confident enough in their leadership capabilities that they appoint specialists... with more knowledge on the individual areas when possible than they have... and are not fearful of hearing contrasting opinions to their own. The President should not try to be the expert in each of the areas. A President should have the ability to communicate well with a variety of personality types.
 
Cypress said:
I never said a president shouldn't have expert advisors.

But, he sure as hell should be able to understand what they're talking about, on a fundamental level, when they come in to talk to him about policy. Clinton was infamous for being a workaholic, and talking long into the night with his advisors on substantive policy issues. And clinton was effective, because he was so full of knowledge, that he could really get something out of discussions with his advisors.

Bush is a moron. When the chief of USEPA comes to talk to Bush, its probably like talking to a third grader. The shrub is clueless.

Ex-Bush advisors are infamous for reporting the Bush never asks any questions, and he is vastly incurious. Bush's former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neil said in his initial job interview with bush, bush never asked him any substantive questions - not on O'Neils view of economic policy, tax policy, fiscal policy...nothing.

Having morons like that in the oval office is dangerous.
Click to expand...

FWIW, I'm just telling you what people I know have told me who have met with Bush while they have been President and for full disclosure two are Republicans and one is a Democrat.

They found him very engaging and thought he spoke very well in private compared to how he struggles with the English language when speaking to the public. They thought he was very involved in the issues they were there to discuss (these were business roundtable type issues).

The feedback I got was different than what Paul O'Neil claims. Again means nothing other than you can take it for what you want.
 
cawacko said:
FWIW, I'm just telling you what people I know have told me who have met with Bush while they have been President and for full disclosure two are Republicans and one is a Democrat.

They found him very engaging and thought he spoke very well in private compared to how he struggles with the English language when speaking to the public. They thought he was very involved in the issues they were there to discuss (these were business roundtable type issues).

The feedback I got was different than what Paul O'Neil claims. Again means nothing other than you can take it for what you want.
Click to expand...


They found him very engaging and thought he spoke very well in private compared to how he struggles with the English language when speaking to the public.

Cawacko, this is the equivalent of the parents of a teenage boy who's being arrested and dragged away in handcuffs for arson and rape, tearfully protesting that their son is "really a good kid at heart" ;)
 
Cypress said:
They found him very engaging and thought he spoke very well in private compared to how he struggles with the English language when speaking to the public.

Cawacko, this is the equivalent of the parents of a teenage boy who's being arrested and dragged away in handcuffs for arson and rape, tearfully protesting that their son is "really a good kid at heart" ;)
Click to expand...

They have no reason to lie or make stuff up to me, I'm nobody. These guys also met with Clinton and told me about him. They're business men, not ideologues.
 
cawacko said:
They have no reason to lie or make stuff up to me, I'm nobody. These guys also met with Clinton and told me about him. They're business men, not ideologues.
Click to expand...

I don't doubt that, on his own turf and in private, Shrub can be "engaging" and relatively well spoken. I mean, I'm sure your friends weren't there to talk about the intricacies of fiscal policy. I'm sure Shrub was on his own turf, and in control of the light hearted conversation.

I'm sure that Ryan Seacreat could be an amiable and well spoken host in private.

Where Bush falls down, is when he's required to answer spontaneous, unscripted questions from journalists or citizens, pertaining to technical matters of public policy
 
Cypress said:
I don't doubt that, on his own turf and in private, Shrub can be "engaging" and relatively well spoken. I mean, I'm sure your friends weren't there to talk about the intricacies of fiscal policy. I'm sure Shrub was on his own turf, and in control of the light hearted conversation.

I'm sure that Ryan Seacreat could be an amiable and well spoken host in private.

Where Bush falls down, is when he's required to answer spontaneous, unscripted questions from journalists or citizens, pertaining to technical matters of public policy
Click to expand...

Actually they were there to talk policy, both with Clinton and Bush. Two are members of the Economic Roundtable of 25 of top CEO's in the country meet with the President. My guy claims it's productive whatever that means. I can't imagine they would just sit there holding each other's d*cks. For high tech you have serious issues of free trade, immigrant visa's etc. For farming you agricultural subsidies etc. So I guess it depends where you want to rank those issues on the scale of serious policy issues.
 
cawacko said:
Actually they were there to talk policy, both with Clinton and Bush. Two are members of the Economic Roundtable of 25 of top CEO's in the country meet with the President. My guy claims it's productive whatever that means. I can't imagine they would just sit there holding each other's d*cks. For high tech you have serious issues of free trade, immigrant visa's etc. For farming you agricultural subsidies etc. So I guess it depends where you want to rank those issues on the scale of serious policy issues.
Click to expand...


LOL

Okay Cawacko, if you want to believe that bush is an engaged and deeply knowlegable person in private, but somehow can't show that side of himself in public, I won't hold it against you. Its fine if you want to believe that ;)
 
Cypress said:
LOL

Okay Cawacko, if you want to believe that bush is an engaged and deeply knowlegable person in private, but somehow can't show that side of himself in public, I won't hold it against you. Its fine if you want to believe that ;)
Click to expand...

Don't go getting down on Cawacko! I happen to believe that George Clooney is getting really bored, as in bo-ring, with 23 year old French swimsuit models, and is looking for a girl like me.

You can't prove it's not true.
 
Darla said:
Don't go getting down on Cawacko! I happen to believe that George Clooney is getting really bored, as in bo-ring, with 23 year old French swimsuit models, and is looking for a girl like me.

You can't prove it's not true.
Click to expand...


Haha!
 
Cypress said:
LOL

Okay Cawacko, if you want to believe that bush is an engaged and deeply knowlegable person in private, but somehow can't show that side of himself in public, I won't hold it against you. Its fine if you want to believe that ;)
Click to expand...

Go google Business Roundtable with President Bush and look at what the group's discussed.
 
Superfreak said:
I like all three as well. As for your request....

President should have a working knowledge of economics, should have a fundamental understanding of the Constitution and the concept of States rights. He/She should be confident enough in their leadership capabilities that they appoint specialists... with more knowledge on the individual areas when possible than they have... and are not fearful of hearing contrasting opinions to their own. The President should not try to be the expert in each of the areas. A President should have the ability to communicate well with a variety of personality types.
Click to expand...
I agree,

any disenting veiws?

AND/OR

Who can we find on either side (or the middle) that's electable???
 
Last edited:
cawacko said:
Go google Business Roundtable with President Bush and look at what the group's discussed.
Click to expand...

I read what Bush's own Secretary of the Treasury said about that Business Roundtalbe meeting.

He wrote that Bush gave some prepared remarks, feigned some interest, sat in on a few seminars, and then left early.

I'm not impressed ;)
 
Cypress said:
I read what Bush's own Secretary of the Treasury said about that Business Roundtalbe meeting.

He wrote that Bush gave some prepared remarks, feigned some interest, sat in on a few seminars, and then left early.

I'm not impressed ;)
Click to expand...

The beauty of a free country.
 
Watermark said:
hehe

True.

Well, actually most Mexicans are anti-abortion catholics, and have a heavily machoismic culture, so they really emulate the rednecks of the south in that respect. It's kind of like how the Nazi's hated the communists so much and they were so damn simialar.
Click to expand...

Umm not any more WM, saw a show on that a few days ago. the more active charismatic evangelicals are sucking in the Mexican Immigrants like flies on stink.
about 30% are now evangelicals and growing fast.
 
cawacko said:
Anyone who has those qualities is probably making a lot of money in the private sector.
Click to expand...
Yep, but that's why it takes a person who has already made their fortune to take the job. the bonus is that they had the knowlege to make their fortune AND KEEP IT.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top