| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
|
OK, so this time, I'm smirking a bit...
Harold and Kumar Go To The White Cas...er, House...um, well, Kumar's probably
not going back to "House" and Harold is not going...yet... Kal "Kumar" Penn, lately of "House," is now working for the Obama Administration...thankfully, it's not as senior advisor to Timmy... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...040800950.html *SMIRK* R |
OK, so this time, I'm smirking a bit...
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message ... The guy gives up a huge Hollywood salary and puts a highly successful acting career on hold to take a low paying job as a public servant and you *SMIRK* ? Well, doesn't that just speak volumes. while Ken's evaluation of his acting talent and career arc might be a bit over the top, I get the same overall impression. What's to *smirk* about? Tom |
OK, so this time, I'm smirking a bit...
On Wed, 08 Apr 2009 23:09:23 GMT, "Tom Littleton" wrote:
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message .. . The guy gives up a huge Hollywood salary and puts a highly successful acting career on hold to take a low paying job as a public servant and you *SMIRK* ? Well, doesn't that just speak volumes. while Ken's evaluation of his acting talent and career arc might be a bit over the top, I get the same overall impression. What's to *smirk* about? Tom Hmmm...first, taking you two quasi-literally for just a second, he ain't exactly Burton or Olivier, or even Brad Pitt or Owen Wilson. Also, depending on his exact title, he ain't exactly making minimum wage in a DR to White House - he could well be making 100-150K plus benefits, perqs, etc., etc. - granted, not a "huge Hollywood salary," but it ain't washing windshields for spare change, either. As to Kalpin/"Kal Penn" himself, if he were a Danica McKellar type and the position was as an education advocate, fair enough - hell, even he were Bono and was appointed to the President's Advisory Board on Wearing Faggish Sunglassses At Inappropriate Times - but this guy (and I've heard various versions as to whether he even was graduated with a BA - some saying yes, some no) was a film student, with (again, AFAIK) no serious work experience beyond acting and now he is, in Obama's own words, helping keep "the front door of the White House"... Long story short, this is another example of Obama's promised change, which had real potential (at least as real as "real" is in DC) gone native. What's next, Tommy Chong as "Drug Czar?" He talked the talk, had the mandate to walk the talk, and as I feared, he's in, and he wants to discuss the walking, modify the talking, and all in all, dance around the discussing of how he can walk and chew gum...bull**** - he either needs to step up and lead, damn the torpedoes, or scoot his ass off to the sidelines...and Kumar Goes To The White House ain't gonna do it, real-world... HTH, R HTH, R ...."...you're doing one heck of a job, Penseter..."... |
OK, so this time, I'm smirking a bit...
On Apr 8, 9:36*pm, wrote:
Here we are, less that 100 days out and Richard, you are batting, what? about .87. Wow. Hardly missed a beat. Most days something new. Obama picked his nose wrong. Obama appointed the wrong person. etc etc. Recession? Obama's not handling it right. What do you think of Obama's choice of dog? We are all ears. When are we going to get your take on Michelle's upper arm strength? How about Obama's choice of ties? This day after day **** is creepy. But I think I may understand it yet. See, year after year, you defended tooth and nail a man in active contention for the "worst President in history" title. You slaved in that vineyard, with some of the most bizarre reasoning ever seen on this site. And how were you rewarded? With incompetence, theivery, corruption and bad ju ju. But still you toiled on. Oh on occasion you denied you cared. But you did care. And so for two full terms G.W.Bush and you, Cheney and you, Dennis and Tommy and you, brothers in the cause. Wrong on EVERY prediction, WRONG on every choice. Not wrong via debate; Wrong by virtue of fact. Never could get a break but . . . Faithful till the end. Not a pretty sight to see an obviously intelligent man, who so loved this unrewarding and bankrupt political team, to be so committed that he prostrated himself in abject loyalty in the face of incompetence and corruption. It must have been really difficult. But happy days are here. Now your team can go back to what they are good at; harassment. I watched Hannity last night. What a martinet. But it gave me an insight into what Obama evokes in wingnuts; Clearly, Obama's superior intelligence, leadership, and masterful speaking style just drives folks of the bankrupt persuasion crazy. Change is what America voted for and change is what is happening. Dave |
OK, so this time, I'm smirking a bit...
wrote in message ... Long story short, this is another example of Obama's promised change in a very real way, it may be. The upside of the Obama victory, and the folks who propelled it, is an interest in public service by folks outside the usual bureaucracy. As a more minor example, I have a friend from the campaign who is so fired up by the idea of service, that he is going to leave his IT job to run for Prothonotory in Berks County. Roughly, a 60% pay drop to do so, but that is how Obama affected folks, insofar as a new dedication to public service. And, getting new blood into the area of public service is among many changes sorely needed. So, once again, smirk away......I really think you are determined to miss the point. Change is happening out there, but, it may not look like what you imagine change to look like. Tom |
OK, so this time, I'm smirking a bit...
On Thu, 09 Apr 2009 09:34:31 GMT, "Tom Littleton" wrote:
wrote in message .. . Long story short, this is another example of Obama's promised change in a very real way, it may be. The upside of the Obama victory, and the folks who propelled it, is an interest in public service by folks outside the usual bureaucracy. As a more minor example, I have a friend from the campaign who is so fired up by the idea of service, that he is going to leave his IT job to run for Prothonotory in Berks County. Roughly, a 60% pay drop to do so, but that is how Obama affected folks, insofar as a new dedication to public service. And, getting new blood into the area of public service is among many changes sorely needed. So, once again, smirk away......I really think you are determined to miss the point. Change is happening out there, but, it may not look like what you imagine change to look like. Tom Ah, OK...so as long as intentions are basically good, then all's well. By this logic, anyone who wishes to offer the least criticism for, as an example, Michael Brown and/or George Bush, must prove to an, um, metaphysical certainty that they had bad intentions for every factor that would affect that criticism or have that critique voided by the "but they didn't INTEND..." rebuttal... IAC, your anecdote about the IT guy brings up two much more important points, the first somewhat-expressed by that old, er, "cunard" - the road to hell is paved with good attentions. I have no idea what actual legal duties the Prothonotary in BC has, but if it does, I don't see how, generally-speaking, a person in an "IT job" would have legal training to qualify them for the position over, say, a notary (a "civil attorney" type notary, not a bank teller with a stamp and a pen), lawyer, paralegal, legal secretary, etc. Would you advocate one widely regarded as a truly skilled carpenter being appointed Surgeon General, or a skilled surgeon being appointed Treasury Secretary...well, OK, so on that last one, there would be a fair chance that it would be an improvement, but still.... That brings us to the second point - this civic-minded IT guy isn't being appointed, he's having to run, and if the people he intends to serve want him to serve regardless of his qualifications, then so be it. HTH, R |
OK, so this time, I'm smirking a bit...
|
OK, so this time, I'm smirking a bit...
On Wed, 8 Apr 2009 23:00:03 -0700 (PDT), DaveS wrote:
On Apr 8, 9:36*pm, wrote: Here we are, less that 100 days out and Richard, you are batting, what? about .87. Wow. Hardly missed a beat. Most days something new. Obama picked his nose wrong. Obama appointed the wrong person. etc etc. Recession? Obama's not handling it right. What do you think of Obama's choice of dog? We are all ears. When are we going to get your take on Michelle's upper arm strength? How about Obama's choice of ties? I think you're much more suited to that type of critique. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that you and Beanie are perfectly suited to engage in a "Point/Counterpoint" type of thing on such weighty matters as Obama's snot, ties, and pets... This day after day **** is creepy. But I think I may understand it yet. See, year after year, you defended tooth and nail a man in active contention for the "worst President in history" title. You slaved in that vineyard, with some of the most bizarre reasoning ever seen on this site. Wow, I did? Damndest thing, but I cannot remember ever typing or uttering anything that might even be twisted into suggesting that I thought Bush was anything other than, at best, an average POTUS of slightly above-average intelligence. And how were you rewarded? With incompetence, theivery, corruption and bad ju ju. Oh, wait - which of the last 44, including this one, are you talking about...? But still you toiled on. Oh on occasion you denied you cared. But you did care. And so for two full terms G.W.Bush and you, Cheney and you, Dennis and Tommy and you, brothers in the cause. Ah, OK, so it is Bush... Wrong on EVERY prediction, WRONG on every choice. Not wrong via debate; Wrong by virtue of fact. Never could get a break but . . . Faithful till the end. Ya gotta love your obviously-blind hypocrisy... Not a pretty sight to see an obviously intelligent man, who so loved this unrewarding and bankrupt political team, to be so committed that he prostrated himself in abject loyalty in the face of incompetence and corruption. It must have been really difficult. Not at all...in fact, one would be correct in saying that I've dealt with it as if it never even happened... But happy days are here. Absolutely - you jumped the shark many years ago... Now your team can go back to what they are good at; harassment. I watched Hannity last night. I didn't - it was sorta like, well, every other night he's on...um, you do mean on TV, right...? What a martinet. Um, a "martinet," Gracie? Hang on, you don't actually mean to say "martian" or "maraschino" or "canard a l'orange" or something, do you...? But it gave me an insight into what Obama evokes in wingnuts; Clearly, Obama's superior intelligence, leadership, and masterful speaking style Hey, I've acknowledged the latter (at least insofar as his speech-making ability) since he first came upon the scene...thus far, however, the jury is still out on the former two...and I particularly note that you, like many other blind devotees, never brag about his alleged common sense... just drives folks of the bankrupt persuasion crazy. Change is what America voted for and change is what is happening. Nope. "America" didn't vote for jack ****, but what most of those in the US who voted for "change" really voted for was getting their own way, just like most of those who voted for McCain, Bush (in 2000, not 2004), Kerry, Gore, Clinton (in 92, not 96), etc., etc., etc. Dave HTH, R |
OK, so this time, I'm smirking a bit...
On Thu, 09 Apr 2009 07:25:29 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote: wrote: "Tom Littleton" wrote: "Ken Fortenberry" wrote: The guy gives up a huge Hollywood salary and puts a highly successful acting career on hold to take a low paying job as a public servant and you *SMIRK* ? Well, doesn't that just speak volumes. while Ken's evaluation of his acting talent and career arc might be a bit over the top, I get the same overall impression. What's to *smirk* about? Hmmm...first, taking you two quasi-literally for just a second, he ain't exactly Burton or Olivier, or even Brad Pitt or Owen Wilson. Also, depending on his exact title, he ain't exactly making minimum wage in a DR to White House - he could well be making 100-150K plus benefits, perqs, etc., etc. - granted, not a "huge Hollywood salary," but it ain't washing windshields for spare change, either. As to Kalpin/"Kal Penn" himself, if he were a Danica McKellar type and the position was as an education advocate, fair enough - hell, even he were Bono and was appointed to the President's Advisory Board on Wearing Faggish Sunglassses At Inappropriate Times - but this guy (and I've heard various versions as to whether he even was graduated with a BA - some saying yes, some no) was a film student, with (again, AFAIK) no serious work experience beyond acting and now he is, in Obama's own words, helping keep "the front door of the White House"... Long story short, ... more drivel snipped What leads you to believe that the guy is not qualified to be an associate director in the public liaison office ? What leads you to believe he is...? Here's a rhetorical question for you - what you have said if Bush (or more likely, someone had recommended to him as a political move) had appointed someone with such a resume to such a post? Besides the vibrating antenna on your tinfoil hood ? Like I said, you're just beancounter with a better vocabulary. Every day it's a new smirk, a new snicker, some new proof that Obama is a screwup and that electing him was a mistake. Nope. It still remains to be seen what kind of POTUS he'll be, but yeah, thus far, he does look every bit the rank amateur he is. And this from the guy who assured us that Shrub is actually a pretty smart fellow and Sarah Palin's academic credentials are every bit as impressive as Obama's. Er, no. What I said was, generally, that comparing resume to resume, Palin's resume made her just as qualified as Obama. I don't recall saying much about Palin's education (I don't even recall what it is beyond, IIRC, several so-so schools to eke out a so-so degree) - I'd agree that Obama's academic credentials exceed Palin's in all manner (even including time). After eight long years of rule by a party whose core tenet is that government is incompetent (and who worked hard to prove it), the smart folks are back in Washington. Smart folks are now encouraged to pursue public service instead of being told that public service is for the shmucks and losers Yet again, you show you don't know, and therefore, don't understand, the difference between "intelligence" and "smart." Bush is, from an objective standpoint, of above-average intelligence, and there's not much evidence that "smart people" are in Washington, back or otherwise...much like Urbana, it seems... HTH, R |
OK, so this time, I'm smirking a bit...
|
OK, so this time, I'm smirking a bit...
On Apr 9, 8:24*am, wrote:
Yet again, you show you don't know, and therefore, don't understand, the difference between "intelligence" and "smart." Pretty much the same as the difference between linoleum floor tile and a haircut, ainna? Bush is, from an objective standpoint, of above-average intelligence, Oh, well, sure, if your going to be all "objective" and **** about it! Sheesh! :( and there's not much evidence that "smart people" are in Washington, back or otherwise...much like Urbana, it seems... Leaving one to wonder just where the smart person is these days. Well, leaving SOME to wonder. But we know, don't we? :) HTH, Oh, immeasurably, as always. g. |
OK, so this time, I'm smirking a bit...
On Thu, 09 Apr 2009 09:05:59 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote: wrote: Ken Fortenberry wrote: What leads you to believe that the guy is not qualified to be an associate director in the public liaison office ? What leads you to believe he is...? Here's a rhetorical question for you - what you have said if Bush (or more likely, someone had recommended to him as a political move) had appointed someone with such a resume to such a post? I don't even know what an associate director in the public liaison office does, and I suspect you don't either. You suspect incorrectly. And actually, you probably know more about it than you realize, but didn't associate the title and office with the work/job - Mary Beth Cahill and Charles Colson are two that come to mind, as well as Ford's, whose name escapes me at the moment - Broomsky or something, who really had a job after Nixon/Colson. While this position isn't exactly National Security Advisor, it ain't nothing, and especially so for an administration promising so much "transparency" and public "openness." So I wouldn't have said, or snickered, or smirked, or sniped anything at all. So IOW, you are admitting you have no idea what the position is or how important it may or may not be, and therefore, could have no idea what qualifications might be necessary or even merely helpful, and further admitting that you have no idea what the qualifications of the person appointed to the position might be beyond his being some hugely-paid superstar (and wrong about that), but because the Obama administration did it, it must be the wisest possible move to make. And doing so while simultaneously accusing me of being blinded by some nebulous bias... Besides having played a stoner in a movie what would disqualify him for a low level job in the Executive Office Building ? IIRC, it's a direct report position and IAC, it's not exactly "low-level." And no, his playing a stoner (or really, having once BEEN a stoner) doesn't "disqualify" him, but again, you are the one doing the assuming - you assume that his resume does qualify him all the while admitting you don't have a clue as to what would or should qualify or disqualify him. And I suppose you believe Leonard Nimoy is a Vulcan, right ? Like I said, you're just beancounter with a better vocabulary. Every day it's a new smirk, a new snicker, some new proof that Obama is a screwup and that electing him was a mistake. Nope. It still remains to be seen what kind of POTUS he'll be, but yeah, thus far, he does look every bit the rank amateur he is. I'm sure he must look that way to a rabid partisan Oh, irony, thy name is Fortenberry... but most Americans don't think so. Asked 'em all, did ya? IAC, it would appear that even his most ardent supporters of even some knowledge and experience are beginning to worry about that exact same thing... HTH, R |
OK, so this time, I'm smirking a bit...
wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote: I don't even know what an associate director in the public liaison office does, and I suspect you don't either. You suspect incorrectly. And actually, you probably know more about it than you realize, but didn't associate the title and office with the work/job - Mary Beth Cahill and Charles Colson are two that come to mind, as well as Ford's, whose name escapes me at the moment - Broomsky or something, who really had a job after Nixon/Colson. While this position isn't exactly National Security Advisor, it ain't nothing, and especially so for an administration promising so much "transparency" and public "openness." So I wouldn't have said, or snickered, or smirked, or sniped anything at all. So IOW, you are admitting you have no idea what the position is ... Uh huh. But at least I'm honest enough and smart enough, (or is it intelligent enough ;-), to admit I don't know. You don't have a ****ing clue either but you figure if you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bull****. You're all about the bull****. Besides having played a stoner in a movie what would disqualify him for a low level job in the Executive Office Building ? IIRC, it's a direct report position and IAC, it's not exactly "low-level." Good gawd, what a pantload. Direct report position, LOL !! All you had to do was look at the Whitehouse web page. http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/opl/bios/ The only person on that page who is in a direct report position is Valerie Jarrett. Charles Colson, LOL !! The guy is going to be an associate director, not an assistant director, not the director, not the Senior Adviser, a low-level associate director. And no, his playing a stoner (or really, having once BEEN a stoner) doesn't "disqualify" him, but again, you are the one doing the assuming - you assume that his resume does qualify him all the while admitting you don't have a clue as to what would or should qualify or disqualify him. Turns out I have a hell of a lot more clue than you do. And you were the one who assumed he had something to smirk about, I just assumed you were full of ****. As usual. One can hardly go wrong in assuming that you're full of it. ;-) I'm sure he must look that way to a rabid partisan Oh, irony, thy name is Fortenberry... I have never denied being a partisan Democrat, you're the one trying to perpetrate some ridiculous non-partisan fiction. but most Americans don't think so. Asked 'em all, did ya? ... Ever heard of polls ? Oh right, I forgot. Polls are only for those who can afford them, us poor folk can't possibly have access to all your top secret data analysis. LOL !! -- Ken Fortenberry |
OK, so this time, I'm smirking a bit...
wrote in message ... Ah, OK...so as long as intentions are basically good, then all's well. By this logic, anyone who wishes to offer the least criticism for, as an example, Michael Brown and/or George Bush, must prove to an, um, metaphysical certainty that they had bad intentions for every factor that would affect that criticism or have that critique voided by the "but they didn't INTEND..." rebuttal... I must have missed the part where this actor was going to serve in a mission-critical function like, say, head of FEMA. Could you elaborate? I have no idea what actual legal duties the Prothonotary in BC has, but if it does, I don't see how, generally-speaking, a person in an "IT job" would have legal training to qualify them for the position over, say, a notary (a "civil attorney" type notary, not a bank teller with a stamp and a pen), lawyer, paralegal, legal secretary, etc. as the job is set up here, the Prothonotary is more or less the keeper of all non-court related County records. Yes, in this day and age, IT management can make for a much more modern and organized system of doing the job. The normal occupant of said position is usually a person from a well-connected family in need of a job, any job. That brings us to the second point - this civic-minded IT guy isn't being appointed, he's having to run, and if the people he intends to serve want him to serve regardless of his qualifications, then so be it. I read your objections, such as you raise, to the Obama administration, and both the trivial nature of the beefs, along with a general missing of the whole changed nature of his political organization jump out at me. In fact, I start hearing Bob Dylan in the background singing, "There's something going on here, but you don't know what it is...." Tom |
OK, so this time, I'm smirking a bit...
wrote in message ... IAC, it would appear that even his most ardent supporters of even some knowledge and experience are beginning to worry about that exact same thing... FWIW, you might be very wrong....... Tom |
OK, so this time, I'm smirking a bit...
|
OK, so this time, I'm smirking a bit...
wrote *SMIRK* R As a Californian, I've seen the terrible, mismanaged, even inhumane, things that can happen when 'movie and TV stars' get a gig in government ( think Reagan and Arnold ) ... ime, at least the Republican versions are more a reason to cringe, than smirk |
OK, so this time, I'm smirking a bit...
Tom Littleton wrote:
I read your objections, such as you raise, to the Obama administration, and both the trivial nature of the beefs, along with a general missing of the whole changed nature of his political organization jump out at me. In fact, I start hearing Bob Dylan in the background singing, "There's something going on here, but you don't know what it is...." At least as regards the Associate Director of Asian-American, Pacific Islander and Arts Community in the Office of Public Liaison, a position the Christian Science Monitor reports has whopping $50K salary, our friend Rick is talking out his ass. That sounds anatomically improbable until one realizes where his head has been stuck. ;-) -- Ken Fortenberry |
OK, so this time, I'm smirking a bit...
On Apr 9, 4:55*pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote: Tom Littleton wrote: I read your objections, such as you raise, to the Obama administration, and both the trivial nature of the beefs, along with a general missing of the whole changed nature of his political organization jump out at me. In fact, I start hearing Bob Dylan in the background singing, "There's something going on here, but you don't know what it is...." At least as regards the Associate Director of Asian-American, Pacific Islander and Arts Community in the Office of Public Liaison, a position the Christian Science Monitor reports has whopping $50K salary, our friend Rick is talking out his ass. That sounds anatomically improbable until one realizes where his head has been stuck. ;-) -- Ken Fortenberry Just a cotton pickin minute here Ken, Rick is rightfully suspicious. $50k for an appointee? Why if Kumar were a Republicrat . . . He would be a front runner presidential candidate, quoting the Great Dullard Raygun ad nauseam. He could have been given a licence to steal in the civilian Iraq Occupation Administration. He would be in line for an ambassador slot in one of the countries of the "Old Europe." He would have a fat no bid contract to supply defective armor kits for our troops. He would have his own seat in the pet minorities seating section of the Republicrat nominating carnival. He could get an auction ticket for sloppy seconds on Gluckert after dark in Rove's Whitehouse office. He would have a Bush nickname . . . maybe something like "Kunta Kinte," or maybe "Mathwhiz." He would qualify for an autographed pair of Palin's $200 used knickers. He, his extended family, their friends and his girlfriends would never serve in the U.S. Military, or Peace Corps. He could get a seat in the Torture Theater, in the Old Exec Bldg, to watch waterboarding live with Cheney and staff. He would be spending money stolen by Bob Perry, that Texan fraud artist who funded the Swift Boaters. He would have an anonymous off shore banking account to hide his ill gotten gains. He would be twice as likely to cheat on his taxes if his income were over $200k, than folks with less. He would be currying favor with other losers by showing how much he hated America. Dave |
OK, so this time, I'm smirking a bit...
On Apr 9, 5:23*am, wrote:
Ahhhhh. Don't think you Boo****s have much to brag on here. Lets get real and stop just rewriting FOX scripts OK? What was DeLay's former occupation? Bugger, right? And Hastart? Sure nuff coach. Wolfowizz? Rick, do you really want to compare position for position Bush vs Obama appointments? If you like we can, and lets include the sanctions, indictments and jail terms for good measure. I will just remind people just how incompetent and venal were the folks who you uncritically supported in their every move, no matter how stupid, no matter how unpatriotic, no matter how wasteful . . . for the last 8 years. Dave |
OK, so this time, I'm smirking a bit...
On Apr 9, 6:24*am, wrote:
Are you going to donate to the Bush Presidential Library? BaHBAHBAHBAHBAHBAH. Dave |
OK, so this time, I'm smirking a bit...
On Apr 9, 6:06*am, wrote:
What a martinet. Um, a "martinet," Gracie? *Hang on, you don't actually mean to say "martian" or "maraschino" or "canard a l'orange" or something, do you...? Here Junior, let me help you out, or more correctly let the Wiki help you out "In English, the term martinet is usually used not in reference to the whip itself, but rather him who would use it, a person who demands strict adherence to set rules, especially such a person in the military. This sense of the word reputedly comes from the name of Jean Martinet, Inspector General of the army of Louis XIV and thus would be etymologically only by accident related to the earlier sense. In an extended sense, a martinet is any person for whom a strict adherence to rules and etiquette is paramount: martinets often use etiquette and other rules as an excuse to trump ethics, to the point that etiquette loses its ethical ground. The Ugandan dictator Idi Amin was famously described as a "strutting martinet" by Time in 1977.[1] " Dave |
OK, so this time, I'm smirking a bit...
On Thu, 09 Apr 2009 22:25:07 GMT, "Tom Littleton" wrote:
wrote in message .. . Ah, OK...so as long as intentions are basically good, then all's well. By this logic, anyone who wishes to offer the least criticism for, as an example, Michael Brown and/or George Bush, must prove to an, um, metaphysical certainty that they had bad intentions for every factor that would affect that criticism or have that critique voided by the "but they didn't INTEND..." rebuttal... I must have missed the part where this actor was going to serve in a mission-critical function like, say, head of FEMA. Could you elaborate? I have no idea what actual legal duties the Prothonotary in BC has, but if it does, I don't see how, generally-speaking, a person in an "IT job" would have legal training to qualify them for the position over, say, a notary (a "civil attorney" type notary, not a bank teller with a stamp and a pen), lawyer, paralegal, legal secretary, etc. as the job is set up here, the Prothonotary is more or less the keeper of all non-court related County records. Yes, in this day and age, IT management can make for a much more modern and organized system of doing the job. The normal occupant of said position is usually a person from a well-connected family in need of a job, any job. That brings us to the second point - this civic-minded IT guy isn't being appointed, he's having to run, and if the people he intends to serve want him to serve regardless of his qualifications, then so be it. I read your objections, such as you raise, to the Obama administration, and both the trivial nature of the beefs, along with a general missing of the whole changed nature of his political organization jump out at me. In fact, I start hearing Bob Dylan in the background singing, "There's something going on here, but you don't know what it is...." Oh, hey, I freely admit I have no idea what the Obama administration is doing in many instances...what concerns me is that they don't, either... I do not claim, as of yet, that he or they are "incompetent," but rather, that it is what concerned me all along: complete inexperience and lack of knowledge. And you (and Ken and many of his other defenders) are correct when you address some of the criticism _in isolation_ as small or "trivial" things. But when you look at the entire spectrum, it adds up to indicating that the lack of experience and knowledge is causing problems - so far, thankfully, most small ones in the scheme of things. Will those things lacking matter in some dramatic fashion? Impossible to say as it can only be commented upon after the fact. TC, R Tom |
OK, so this time, I'm smirking a bit...
On Apr 9, 7:40*pm, wrote:
Lets see: Obama gets to clean up 2 Bush wars, one massive Bush depression, and root out thousands of feather bedded Liberty University and other right wing diploma mill grads salted all over the DOJ and other federal departments sitting on their asses, and these Boo****s have the nerve to ride his ass over little ****? Typical America hating crap from losers who correctly recognize that the partisan gravy train of no-bid corruption and ****-our-troops-for-a- dollar are OVER. Dave |
OK, so this time, I'm smirking a bit...
On Thu, 9 Apr 2009 19:15:48 -0700 (PDT), DaveS wrote:
On Apr 9, 6:06*am, wrote: What a martinet. Um, a "martinet," Gracie? *Hang on, you don't actually mean to say "martian" or "maraschino" or "canard a l'orange" or something, do you...? Here Junior, let me help you out, or more correctly let the Wiki help you out Maybe you ought to Wiki up something for yourself, there, Daffy... "In English, the term martinet is usually used not in reference to the whip itself, but rather him who would use it, a person who demands strict adherence to set rules, especially such a person in the military. This sense of the word reputedly comes from the name of Jean Martinet, Inspector General of the army of Louis XIV and thus would be etymologically only by accident related to the earlier sense. In an extended sense, a martinet is any person for whom a strict adherence to rules and etiquette is paramount: martinets often use etiquette and other rules as an excuse to trump ethics, to the point that etiquette loses its ethical ground. The Ugandan dictator Idi Amin was famously described as a "strutting martinet" by Time in 1977.[1] " As I said, I don't watch Hannity, but I did occasionally watch Hannity and Colmes, and I must say, the first time I saw it, I thought, "Boy, that Hannity guy is _EXACTLY_ like a white Idi Amin"...his exaggerated military bearing and repeated citing of "Robert's Rules of Order" and "Emily Post," even to off-camera personnel, did seem a bit odd and excessive... HTH, R ....OTOH, maybe it was just all the festoonery on Hannity's Gilbert and Sullivan inspired uniform...he is the very model of a modern Ugandan dictator... Dave |
OK, so this time, I'm smirking a bit...
On Apr 9, 9:11*pm, wrote:
Ah ha!!!! Now I know for sure we got you Boo****s on the run. You can tell when they start to turn on their heroes, like Rick here just did on one of the their main mentors, Mr. Martinet Hannity, the whackjob, Mr. Boo**** Leader Maximo of the Boo****skies, Mr FOX, Ruperts favorite Boot Licker Hannahosuckmaster, and all round ****ant. Up to this point his resolve was solid and Der Plan was underway. Possibly under the very leadership of the secretive, Senor Rick. #1, Send in the BeanMan, let him get under their skin with his mindless troweling on of **** made up in the mind of head Druguser in Chief, Limpback and his gang, The Anal Warts. #2. Then along come Rick, smoking jacket and all, Deconstructionista, master of disaster in the reasoning and logic areana, true believer in every act of Bush and Cheney, loyal in spite of it all, unshakable in the defense of incompetence, unmoved by continous acts of Bush stupidity and out of control spending, . . . along come Rick with the daily made up ****y harassment of the Obama Prez, from day one. What unquestioning loyalty. Better than Rin Tinny Tin. #3 And the Rice a Roni? The Anal Warts!!!!!!!!! Those wild and crazy guys, those silly ass biters, . . . from California to the Massachusetts Highlands. . . sing it Mz Laura, those Fox and Rush stalled warts, well you fill in the rest. But like Raygun's mind in his second term, the plan is not working. The people have a memory. They remember all too well how the Boo****s wanted to steal their Social Security accounts. They remember who in the Bush Whitehouse betrayed US CIA agents to cover up Presidential lies, They know who signed the blank checks to the banks. They know about the stolen money that should have been used to help our soldiers get Bin Ladin. Dave |
OK, so this time, I'm smirking a bit...
On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 02:07:28 -0700 (PDT), Daffy Duck wrote:
Ah ha!!!! Now I know for sure we got you Boo****s on the run. You can tell when they start to turn on their heroes, like Rick here just did on one of the their main mentors, Mr. Martinet Hannity, the whackjob, Mr. Boo**** Leader Maximo of the Boo****skies, Mr FOX, Ruperts favorite Boot Licker Hannahosuckmaster, and all round ****ant. Up to this point his resolve was solid and Der Plan was underway. Possibly under the very leadership of the secretive, Senor Rick. #1, Send in the BeanMan, let him get under their skin with his mindless troweling on of **** made up in the mind of head Druguser in Chief, Limpback and his gang, The Anal Warts. #2. Then along come Rick, smoking jacket and all, Deconstructionista, master of disaster in the reasoning and logic areana, true believer in every act of Bush and Cheney, loyal in spite of it all, unshakable in the defense of incompetence, unmoved by continous acts of Bush stupidity and out of control spending, . . . along come Rick with the daily made up ****y harassment of the Obama Prez, from day one. What unquestioning loyalty. Better than Rin Tinny Tin. #3 And the Rice a Roni? The Anal Warts!!!!!!!!! Those wild and crazy guys, those silly ass biters, . . . from California to the Massachusetts Highlands. . . sing it Mz Laura, those Fox and Rush stalled warts, well you fill in the rest. But like Raygun's mind in his second term, the plan is not working. The people have a memory. They remember all too well how the Boo****s wanted to steal their Social Security accounts. They remember who in the Bush Whitehouse betrayed US CIA agents to cover up Presidential lies, They know who signed the blank checks to the banks. They know about the stolen money that should have been used to help our soldiers get Bin Ladin. Daffy Duck There. HTH, R |
OK, so this time, I'm smirking a bit...
On Apr 10, 5:54*am, wrote:
There. HTH, R- Hide quoted text - Dear Rick Keenardo, You should have seen Hannity/FOX today. Right at the end of his piece on "Today's Themes for Boo**** America Haters" he laid it all out. He said, "A special dart goes out today for Boo****ers who up till now have with slavish, unquestioning loyalty, mouthed lavish hate on anyone trying to clean up the crap our team has pulled on the American people, BUT WHO are LOSING FAITH with the principles of screw-the- people, and cheat-the-troops-for-a-dollar, and so-you-thought- your-401k-was safe-from-us. "These principles are our Bible and don't you forget it." He went on to say. . . "if you cannot keep up the Boo****er attacks on Obama every day your privileges will be revoked. No more legacy admissions, cancellation of off shore bank accounts, no more no-bid contracts, no more fake "Made in the USA" labels. And that's just the start." That is scary stuff. What with the resupply of Duck loads that Cheney just got, no one would blame you if you backed off of the "hate America" Boo**** team. Even Nascar has seen some cutbacks. Dave |
OK, so this time, I'm smirking a bit...
"DaveS" wrote in message ... On Apr 9, 9:11 pm, wrote: Ah ha!!!!.....much snipped The people have a memory. They remember all too well how the Boo****s wanted to steal their Social Security accounts. They remember who in the Bush Whitehouse betrayed US CIA agents to cover up Presidential lies, They know who signed the blank checks to the banks. They know about the stolen money that should have been used to help our soldiers get Bin Ladin. Hell, I'm a longtime Democrat, and I don't believe much of the above(or the snipped part). The US public has the long-term memory, collectively, of a hamster. I will gladly wait to be proven wrong, but doubt I'll see that..... Tom |
OK, so this time, I'm smirking a bit...
wrote in message ... Will those things lacking matter in some dramatic fashion? Impossible to say as it can only be commented upon after the fact. overall, I see a very human leadership, warts and all, that seems to be doing an extremely competent, workmanlike job of plowing through a host of problems(most brought on by gross incompetence of others, dating back years). Like I said, something is happening here, and it goes far beyond the Administration, to the renewed focus of a larger part of the electorate on the common good. A changed notion, if you will, of the role of the public in government, and role of government in the functioning of society. Probably, this is merely a pendulum-swing type of reaction to the Conservative swing of the past several decades. But, focusing on minor issues with the President's administration, while overlooking the ability to put some competent folks into key roles, and value intelligent input, seems to be an odd choice.Given the potential of Obama to tap into, for good purposes, that new spirit and focus of the electorate, IMO, you could ponder more important matters, without losing much sleep over the competence of the Obama team. As they say, though, YMMV. Tom |
OK, so this time, I'm smirking a bit...
On Apr 10, 2:20*pm, "Tom Littleton" wrote:
"DaveS" wrote in message ... On Apr 9, 9:11 pm, wrote: Ah ha!!!!.....much snipped The people have a memory. They remember all too well how the Boo****s wanted to steal their Social Security accounts. They remember who in the Bush Whitehouse betrayed US CIA agents to cover up Presidential lies, They know who signed the blank checks to the banks. They know about the stolen money that should have been used to help our soldiers get Bin Ladin. Hell, I'm a longtime Democrat, and I don't believe much of the above(or the snipped part). The US public has the long-term memory, collectively, of a hamster. I will gladly wait to be proven wrong, but doubt I'll see that...... * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Tom Ah yes, the hamster keenardo again. While America slept the Boo****s ate most of the hamsters, and it was Boo****s that sold the rest into bondage. You want proof? You want proof? We don need no stinkin proof. We got de motion. Yet none, not one hamster bowed before King or Queen, Emporer or Duke of Earl. As I walk thru this Kingdom no one can stop the Duke of Earl. No one. Dave Duke Duka Duke Duka Duke Duka Earl |
OK, so this time, I'm smirking a bit...
"DaveS" wrote in message ... Ah yes, the hamster keenardo again. While America slept the Boo****s ate most of the hamsters, and it was Boo****s that sold the rest into bondage. You want proof? You want proof? We don need no stinkin proof. We got de motion. Yet none, not one hamster bowed before King or Queen, Emporer or Duke of Earl. As I walk thru this Kingdom no one can stop the Duke of Earl. No one. Dave Duke Duka Duke Duka Duke Duka Earl they have medications for this sort of stuff. Really. gTom |
OK, so this time, I'm smirking a bit...
On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 21:29:01 GMT, "Tom Littleton" wrote:
wrote in message .. . Will those things lacking matter in some dramatic fashion? Impossible to say as it can only be commented upon after the fact. overall, I see a very human leadership, warts and all, that seems to be doing an extremely competent, workmanlike job of plowing through a host of problems(most brought on by gross incompetence of others, dating back years). Like I said, something is happening here, and it goes far beyond the Administration, to the renewed focus of a larger part of the electorate on the common good. A changed notion, if you will, of the role of the public in government, and role of government in the functioning of society. Probably, this is merely a pendulum-swing type of reaction to the Conservative swing of the past several decades. But, focusing on minor issues with the President's administration, while overlooking the ability to put some competent folks into key roles, and value intelligent input, seems to be an odd choice.Given the potential of Obama to tap into, for good purposes, that new spirit and focus of the electorate, IMO, you could ponder more important matters, without losing much sleep over the competence of the Obama team. As they say, though, YMMV. Tom Here's how I see it - I think most agreed that Obama could not possibly live up to the ridiculous, unrealistic "hype" during the election cycle and immediately afterward. So the fact that he didn't means little. Likewise, a fair portion of the nonsense, ala "Beancounter" and his not being a US citizen, his being some secret Muslim "terrorist," etc., was and is preposterous and ridiculous. He did and does have fantastic potential, both personally and to tap into "the public potential." But when he does things like nominate and champion Hillary Clinton, Tim Geithner, and worse, Daschle, he demonstrates a lack of both common sense and political savvy, not to mention "smarts." And then, he does plain ol' amateurish **** like bowing to Abdullah, _with footage of it_, and then, allowing/having his people make up **** about shaking hands with Shorty, or having Jarrett hire Kumar as PL to Asian-Americans and the Arts and having his people defend it by citing Kalpen's "International Security" college work, which consisted of a coupla-few online classes, and now, as Ken posted, this dog stuff. And then, the "surrogates" defend all of this amateur-hour shtick by, yet again, going to the "OH, YEAH?! Well, BUSH BUSH BUSH CHENEY CHENEY CHENEY!!!!" defense. Of course, none of the small stuff matters _as isolated incidents_, but when viewed as a total, it's not promising. Look, if was and ran as some "plain ol' guy" with good ideas, it would mitigate this stuff, but he didn't - he ran as the super-sharp man with the plan. Combine all this with the more serious "violations of trust" in all but ignoring key campaign _promises_ (and thus placing them in the realm of typical "business as usual" campaign "promises") such as "no lobbyists," "out of Iraq in 09," etc., etc. (which themselves were amateurish campaign promises that even his one-time Dem rivals called as such), and I believe the criticism is warranted. Can he pull up and out of it? Sure, and I hope he does. But he better pull back on the stick pretty quickly or he's gonna hit a pretty big hill... HTH, R |
OK, so this time, I'm smirking a bit...
On Apr 11, 6:50*am, wrote:
Rick, after 8+ years of your political ****, ass kissing each and every move of Bush/Cheney and the Greed Interregnum, ignoring the substance of every move of these clowns against the Constitutional foundations of the country, putting the most ridiculous interpretations on the most despicable venal moves and defending slavishly each and every theft of taxpayer money and trust. . . why in heaven's name do you think you have any credibility whatsoever in pretending that yours is an objective or useful assessment of Obama? The thing most people get, which apparently you do not yet understand, is that the people, the voters have decided that the choices you advocated were incompetent crooks and the voters decided to give the "Ds" a chance to clean up the mess that your team created, and the mess that you are unwilling to take any responsibility for. The least you could do is to re-examine your thinking and consider where you went wrong. Do that for a bit, and maybe you would have some credibility in this off topic area. Until that happens your stuff reads "stubborn loser/learning unlikely." Dave .. .. |
OK, so this time, I'm smirking a bit...
DaveS wrote:
Rick, after 8+ years of your political ****, ass kissing each and every move of Bush/Cheney and the Greed Interregnum, ignoring the substance of every move of these clowns against the Constitutional foundations of the country, putting the most ridiculous interpretations on the most despicable venal moves and defending slavishly each and every theft of taxpayer money and trust. . . why in heaven's name do you think you have any credibility whatsoever in pretending that yours is an objective or useful assessment of Obama? The thing most people get, which apparently you do not yet understand, is that the people, the voters have decided that the choices you advocated were incompetent crooks and the voters decided to give the "Ds" a chance to clean up the mess that your team created, and the mess that you are unwilling to take any responsibility for. The least you could do is to re-examine your thinking and consider where you went wrong. Do that for a bit, and maybe you would have some credibility in this off topic area. Until that happens your stuff reads "stubborn loser/learning unlikely." Well and rightly said but our friend Rick Bean Dean lost all credibility a long time. It was Rick who assured us that Obama and his team were naifs, babes in the woods, inexperienced, amateur neophytes who had no chance in hell against the Clinton, heir apparent juggernaut. Obama trounced them and won the Democratic nomination going away. It was Rick who told us in no uncertain terms that Obama and his team were rank amateurs who hadn't the sense or experience to take on the best of the best of the GOP. Obama won in an electoral landslide. Now it's Rick Bean Dean spouting the same old bull****, (he's really big on bull**** ;-), about how Obama and his team have no smarts, experience, common sense or savvy. Yeah, your label fits perfectly, "stubborn loser/learning unlikely". As for credibility, well maybe if you borrow the tinfoil hood when the antenna works. ;-) -- Ken Fortenberry |
OK, so this time, I'm smirking a bit...
On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 18:03:23 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote: DaveS wrote: Rick, after 8+ years of your political ****, ass kissing each and every move of Bush/Cheney and the Greed Interregnum, ignoring the substance of every move of these clowns against the Constitutional foundations of the country, putting the most ridiculous interpretations on the most despicable venal moves and defending slavishly each and every theft of taxpayer money and trust. . . why in heaven's name do you think you have any credibility whatsoever in pretending that yours is an objective or useful assessment of Obama? The thing most people get, which apparently you do not yet understand, is that the people, the voters have decided that the choices you advocated were incompetent crooks and the voters decided to give the "Ds" a chance to clean up the mess that your team created, and the mess that you are unwilling to take any responsibility for. The least you could do is to re-examine your thinking and consider where you went wrong. Do that for a bit, and maybe you would have some credibility in this off topic area. Until that happens your stuff reads "stubborn loser/learning unlikely." Well and rightly said Actually, incorrectly said. I defended Bush and/or Cheney on a limited few things, particularly the Katrina response and "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq, both about which I had direct, personal knowledge (not to mention, since Saddam had undeniably _used_ such weapons, it's pretty hard to say they didn't exist). Further, I did say, and still feel, that Bush was a better choice than either Gore or Kerry (but I never said, nor have I ever felt, that he was the best possible choice). but our friend Rick Bean Dean lost all credibility a long time. It was Rick who assured us that Obama and his team were naifs, babes in the woods, inexperienced, amateur neophytes who had no chance in hell against the Clinton, heir apparent juggernaut. Obama trounced them and won the Democratic nomination going away. Er, nope. It was Rick who told us in no uncertain terms that Obama and his team were rank amateurs who hadn't the sense or experience to take on the best of the best of the GOP. Obama won in an electoral landslide. Er, nope. That was his now-Veep and his now-Secretary of State and her husband that saying stuff like that... And "an electoral landslide"...hmmm....aren't you among those who claim Gore really won...? IAC, an "electoral landslide" is meaningless in practical terms - every eligible voter in the US could vote, and a very small fraction of the popular votes could create "an electoral landslide," or, a relative few could vote in certain areas and the winner of an "electoral landslide" could lose the popular vote by 30-plus%. IIRC, I called the popular vote within a point or two - it was, what 53-46, and again, IIRC, I predicted 51 to 49, plus or minus a point or two, with minority voters being a wild card. And no, I didn't pick McCain as the certain winner. Now it's Rick Bean Dean spouting the same old bull****, (he's really big on bull**** ;-), about how Obama and his team have no smarts, experience, common sense or savvy. Yeah, your label fits perfectly, "stubborn loser/learning unlikely". As for credibility, well maybe if you borrow the tinfoil hood when the antenna works. ;-) HTH, R |
OK, so this time, I'm smirking a bit...
|
OK, so this time, I'm smirking a bit...
On Apr 11, 6:05*pm, wrote:
On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 18:03:23 -0500, Ken Fortenberry wrote: DaveS wrote: Rick, after 8+ years of your political ****, ass kissing each and every move of Bush/Cheney and the Greed Interregnum, ignoring the substance of every move of these clowns against the Constitutional foundations of the country, putting the most ridiculous interpretations on the most despicable venal moves and defending slavishly each and every theft of taxpayer money and trust. . . why in heaven's name do you think you have any credibility whatsoever in pretending that yours is an objective or useful assessment of Obama? The thing most people get, which apparently you do not yet understand, *is that the people, the voters have decided that the choices you advocated were incompetent crooks and the voters decided to give the "Ds" a chance to clean up the mess that your team created, and the mess that you are unwilling to take any responsibility for. The least you could do is to re-examine your thinking and consider where you went wrong. Do that for a bit, and maybe you would have some credibility in this off topic area. Until that happens your stuff reads "stubborn loser/learning unlikely." Well and rightly said Actually, incorrectly said. *I defended Bush and/or Cheney on a limited few things, particularly the Katrina response and "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq, both about which I had direct, personal knowledge (not to mention, since Saddam had undeniably _used_ such weapons, it's pretty hard to say they didn't exist). *Further, I did say, and still feel, that Bush was a better choice than either Gore or Kerry (but I never said, nor have I ever felt, that he was the best possible choice). but our friend Rick Bean Dean lost all credibility a long time. It was Rick who assured us that Obama and his team were naifs, babes in the woods, inexperienced, amateur neophytes who had no chance in hell against the Clinton, heir apparent juggernaut. Obama trounced them and won the Democratic nomination going away. Er, nope. It was Rick who told us in no uncertain terms that Obama and his team were rank amateurs who hadn't the sense or experience to take on the best of the best of the GOP. Obama won in an electoral landslide. Er, nope. *That was his now-Veep and his now-Secretary of State and her husband that saying stuff like that... And "an electoral landslide"...hmmm....aren't you among those who claim Gore really won...? *IAC, an "electoral landslide" is meaningless in practical terms - every eligible voter in the US could vote, and a very small fraction of the popular votes could create "an electoral landslide," or, a relative few could vote in certain areas and the winner of an "electoral landslide" could lose the popular vote by 30-plus%. * IIRC, I called the popular vote within a point or two - it was, what 53-46, and again, IIRC, I predicted 51 to 49, plus or minus a point or two, with minority voters being a wild card. *And no, I didn't pick McCain as the certain winner. Now it's Rick Bean Dean spouting the same old bull****, (he's really big on bull**** ;-), about how Obama and his team have no smarts, experience, common sense or savvy. Yeah, your label fits perfectly, "stubborn loser/learning unlikely". As for credibility, well maybe if you borrow the tinfoil hood when the antenna works. ;-) HTH, R- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - From one pain in the ass to another: Oh Jebus man, just stop. You dig it deeper and deeper. It comes across like the life long horse player who falls in love with the name of a nag. The nag loses and loses, can't seem to get started, dumps jockeys all the time. But still the old horse player bets, tells his friends to bet, bets again and again, gives the same excuses over and over and over. If only the World would conform things would be all right. Here is how things work: You say how things are, whats going to happen. People listen. They think, "OK, interesting opinion. Maybe he's right. Things turn out differently. People say, "Hummmm, well maybe next time." And. . . You say how things are, whats going to happen. People listen. They think, "OK, interesting opinion. Maybe this time he's right. Things turn out differently. People say, "Hummmm, well maybe there is a pattern here." And . . . You insist how things are, whats going to happen. People listen. They think, "He doesn't seem to understand what's going on." Things turn out differently. People say, "Hummmm, he did it again." And You keep insisting how things are, whats going to happen. People listen. They think, "Not again". Things turn out differently. People say, "Jebus man, Stick to what you know." Multiply by 6-8 years and 500-600 repetitions . . . . I respect what you know about lots of stuff, and opinions are . . . opinions, but pleeeeze do not expect to have any cred whatsoever on your unchanged and unreconstructed opinions on where the country ought to be politically, or how we got here, or why Obama is a piece of ****. It just does not wash. Dave |
OK, so this time, I'm smirking a bit...
DaveS wrote of rdean:
snip I respect what you know about lots of stuff, and opinions are . . . opinions, but pleeeeze do not expect to have any cred whatsoever on your unchanged and unreconstructed opinions on where the country ought to be politically, or how we got here, or why Obama is a piece of ****. It just does not wash. Yeah, and it smells bad too. ;-) Rick's ridiculous notions about Obama remind me of a classic line from Casablanca, (well, truth is *all* the lines from Casablanca are classics). Major rdean Strasser: You give him credit for too much cleverness. My impression was that he's just another blundering American. Captain Ken Renault: We musn't underestimate "American blundering". I was with them when they "blundered" into Berlin in 1918. Rick has it in his head that Obama is some sort of amateur politician who blunders along from mistake to mistake. Nothing could be further from the truth. Obama is a skilled, savvy, professional politician surrounded by a cast of smart, pragmatic, highly experienced political veterans. -- Ken Fortenberry |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:29 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2006 FishingBanter