Generational Dynamics Forum - New Site

Higgs, that's a very interesting way of looking at it. That a large segment of the public may not really care about the birth certificate issue but are projecting their dislike for Obama's policies into that issue is a novel thought, and may be entirely true - or as true as any sociological statement can be. I found it very interesting that quite a few are moving towards his admission to college to prove that he was some affirmative action admission to Harvard, which is almost certainly true in at least one sense, as Harvard does indeed have internal quotas they almost never discuss that give a certain degree of preference to a number of students who are neither wealthy nor well connected, as the board has stated they do not want to run a college full of only the richest .1% of students in the country. (And I would not enjoy that experience either, a bit of salt improves the soup, as a chef might put it.) However, unless you believe Harvard doctored his records, he graduated magna cum laude, and that would turn it into the strongest arguement imaginable for positive outcomes from affirmative action - which I sincerely doubt is the intent of the people casting doubt on his records. However, if we consider this as projection of their dislike for the looting of the middle class, then it makes a certain amount of sense. This could even be applied to the way the tea party is attacking certain Republicans as being "not conservative enough", which is many cases is simply incorrect, but makes sense if this is actually a projection of "you were in on the looting and bankrupting of the middle class".

Interesting thoughts. I'll have to digest that for a while.

As an aside, I've referenced Buffett's insincerity regarding the bailouts in a couple places (and most recently above). Here are the references:

BUFFETT: I didn't like it. (Laughs.) No, I mean, the government forced them to issue the shares. The government's done a lot of good things for the economy and net I'm a beneficiary and Berkshire Hathaway is a beneficiary of the things overall they've done. But they cost us real money at Wells Fargo.

Whoops, now later he says:

BUFFETT: (Laughs.) No, what was done in the fall of 2008 was designed to save the American economy. It wasn't designed to save the banks, it wasn't designed to save me. It was designed to [save] 309 million Americans and a good job was done. But the banks are the ones, you know, particularly I just named a few, they paid it back with huge interest. The government's made a lot of money on that. And to say that they should be paying for the fact that the government lost a lot, or may lose a lot of money in Freddie and Fannie and perhaps with the auto companies, it just doesn't make any sense to me.

Nonsense, makes me want to puke. Granted, the two statements are not mutually exclusive due to the wording but let's get real. Buffett lobbied to get a special exemption written into the finance bill so he doesn't need to post margin on certain derivatives contracts.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/34953353/CNBC_Tr ... w_Part_One

Now, three years later, faced with the prospect of tougher rules, Buffett wants his company's $63 billion derivatives portfolio to be essentially grandfathered in. To achieve this, he has lobbied Sen. Ben Nelson, the Nebraska Democrat to whom Berkshire and its employees have contributed $75,550 during his political career [9] -- more than any other company.

http://www.propublica.org/blog/item/buf ... -exemption

so, now we are moving on from birth certificates to affirmative action?...please!...what has that got to do with ANYTHING??....oh wait, minorities get favored by affirmative action...hmmm...um, John, maybe you better come back and lecture me on that whole racism has nothing to do with criticizing Obama topic...

Dear David,

shoshin wrote: > so, now we are moving on from birth certificates to affirmative
> action?...please!...what has that got to do with ANYTHING??....oh
> wait, minorities get favored by affirmative action...hmmm...um,
> John, maybe you better come back and lecture me on that whole
> racism has nothing to do with criticizing Obama topic...

OK, David, let's go over this again.

When a Democrat ridiculed George Bush's Texas access and Texas hat in
2001, and calling him an illegitimate president, it doesn't mean that
the Democrat is racially bigoted against all Texans. It means that
he's using Bush's "race" for political purposes.

When Frank Rich questioned Clarence Thomas' resume, and Ted Kennedy
made numerous similar remarks about Thomas, it doesn't mean that Rich
and Kennedy are racist bigots; it means that Rich and Kennedy are
using Thomas's race for political purposes.

When a Republican questions Obama's resume, it doesn't mean that the
Republican is a racist bigot; it means that he's using Obama's race
for political purposes.

What these cases have in common is that the target is only ONE PERSON.

On the other hand, when Democrats call Tea Partiers "racist
teabaggers," then the Democrats are being racist bigots, because
they're demonizing a whole class, not just one person.

Got it?

John

OLD1953 wrote:Re the above, I found it interesting that both Jack and Higgs gave reasons for preferring businessmen that would apply more to small businessmen or to a middle manager than a CEO. Generally speaking, we organize around the general staff principle in these complex times, and the CEO simply sets policy, and depends on the staff, under his direction, to accomplish the goals the policy sets forth. The CEO job is much more in line with the job skills demanded by the presidential office, but the CEO isn't at all in tune with the common man. The first Bush was very much the CEO type of president, and he probably did that as well as anyone could from that perspective.

I didn't give a long winded explanation on this topic either, so will delve into this a little more. Speaking for myself, I was never able to make the jump from being a one man show who hired help as needed to building an organization. I recognize the ability to build and manage an organization as a requirement for being a successful president, so would not be looking to someone such as myself as a good presidential candidate. My weakness in that regard is that I spend too much time focusing on details whereas successful organization builders and managers cultivate contacts who they can rely upon to quickly fill in the details. This requires an aptitude to know who has the ability and integrity to best deliver those results without fact checking or micromanaging the chosen individuals while also having the ability to smell and check up on a rat only when necessary. I'm constantly wasting time fact checking and micromanaging details (there is ample evidence of that in my posts). Another comment I would make is that throughout my life I've noticed that it is more difficult by far to build something than to maintain it. Therefore, an individual who has built a business organization has in my opinion achieved something that any political figure has not proven the capability to do. In order to understand a large organization and its intricacies, it's helpful in my opinion to have first constructed a microcosm of that from the ground up. I would think just as round numbers that someone who has built a 100 person plus business organization by the age of 35 and then gone on to management roles in various larger organizations would be ideal.

List of attributes taken from previous post for reference (by no means conclusive): Leadership skills, hard work, organization skills, accurate thought processes, creativity, financial skills, and maybe a sense of urgency.

Problem is, the best organizers and builders prefer to work for themselves, not run for office and work for everyone, at a vast reduction in income. The few who do generally have something in mind, and I don't mean something good.

Possible solution to this conundrum is simple enough, allow the parties to draft whomever they please and those draftees MUST run in the primaries. Wouldn't be much extra work at all for the Selective Service Board, and the bureaucracy is already in place and functioning. Added cost would be nil.

And we'd certainly get a better slate of candidates, especially if the parties were REQUIRED to field at least two draftees in each presidential primary.

Nothing impossible there, and it's been done for millions of Americans in time of war. So why not?