OK, so this time, I'm smirking a bit...

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 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 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
...
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

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/

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

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

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