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

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. So I wouldn't have
said, or snickered, or smirked, or sniped anything at all. Besides
having played a stoner in a movie what would disqualify him for a
low level job in the Executive Office Building ? 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 but most
Americans don't think so.

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, ...

Yeah, yeah, yeah, the same old tired bull****. The only person
on earth who knows and understands is Professor Dean hisownself.

--
Ken Fortenberry

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

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

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

http://chiaobama.com/

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.

On Apr 9, 6:24*am, wrote:

Are you going to donate to the Bush Presidential Library?
BaHBAHBAHBAHBAHBAH.

Dave