I am looking for a new GM for a business I own. I've narrowed it down to 2 guys.
The first guy has about 60 years experience in the company in one compacity or another, and knows the interworkings very well. I only need him to have this job for 4 to 8 years, and he seems like the most qualified.
The second guy has 2 years experience in the company, but has never gotten any real work done, if he shows up at all. Several of his friends and mentors work for a competetor that wants to take my company over and run it the exact opposite way of my original intent. He really doesn't seen like the most qualified guy in the world, and I really question his judgement.
hmmmm... I think I'll hire the second guy for the most important job in my company... Did I forget to mention that I've never had a black GM, and he's bi-racial, so that would be historical. Oh, and he said he was gonna change the company.... the details have been fuzzy on how, but he's a fantastic speaker, so it has to be good, right?

Sound familiar to anyone??? Thought a nice analogy to this prez election would be good for the idiots that won tonite to read.
"Remember, it's not a lie if YOU believe it" George Costanza
Original Post
I agree with your analogy. Whites to the back of the bus please. Is this the change he is talking about????????
Put a little more faith in change and do not let fear hold you back. Most people in Alabama fear change, and this is why everything stays the same. Alabama will always think the same and never grow no more than it has, because the people who power her fear change.
quote:
Originally posted by meanasasnake:
It is hard to lose.
don't kid yourself, we all lost. if mccain would have been elected, we'd still be in the same boat. this was truly a case of "picking your least evil", not choosing who is best. the state of politics in america is sad, we have no statesmen anymore. a freshman senator vs. a yes man. how did we get lucky enough to get this choice?
I've never been afraid of change, but just extactly what will those changes be? I've really looked and all I can clearly come up with is 'change'. If the change is for the good there will be no problems and life will be great. On the other hand.....
quote:
Originally posted by JJPAUL:
Put a little more faith in change and do not let fear hold you back. Most people in Alabama fear change, and this is why everything stays the same. Alabama will always think the same and never grow no more than it has, because the people who power her fear change.
No, we did not "all lose". The candidate I supported won. Like all of you who supported Bush, I support my President Elect and will stick by my vote. Like I said - Its hard to lose.
quote:
Originally posted by meanasasnake:
No, we did not "all lose".
the measure of that is if you feel the same way in four years...
quote:
Originally posted by monster:
quote:
Originally posted by meanasasnake:
No, we did not "all lose".
the measure of that is if you feel the same way in four years...


I guess you speak from experience. GWB is in large part why Obama is our next president. I will take the risk with Obama and we will see - just like you did with Bush. Get over it, McCain lost. It happens.
Peter, apparently McCain needed the same advice.

You're ahead in the polls, however, the country is in a terrible situation all the way around, but especially financially.

Who do you hire?

A successful man who has decades of experience, turning companies around, making very good sound business decisions....

or someone who has a fraction of the experience in every aspect?

You've got one shot, the country is burning down, who do you choose?

Regards
Lol.....the whine has begun. 349 electoral votes, the largest landslide in a generation. The American people have spoken.
quote:
Originally posted by meanasasnake:
Lol.....the whine has begun. 349 electoral votes, the largest landslide in a generation. The American people have spoken.


Not exactly meansnake. Remember the old saying: "You can fool some people some of the time, but you can't fool all the people all of the time". For more info on landslides here's a link. Please not this one is NOT the "largest landslide in a generation".

Link
quote:
Originally posted by meanasasnake:
quote:
Originally posted by monster:
quote:
Originally posted by meanasasnake:
No, we did not "all lose".
the measure of that is if you feel the same way in four years...


I guess you speak from experience. GWB is in large part why Obama is our next president. I will take the risk with Obama and we will see - just like you did with Bush. Get over it, McCain lost. It happens.


Bush and the Neocons have commandeered the GOP and driven it into pooper.

They foolishly followed Reagan's lead and borrowed and spent so much money, and expanded government so much it wasn't even funny.

And now they're out, but the damage is done.

I don't believe that the Dems are the answer.

Their track record is just as bad.

We're in a very, very tough position....

Regards
quote:
Originally posted by meanasasnake:
I guess you speak from experience. GWB is in large part why Obama is our next president. I will take the risk with Obama and we will see - just like you did with Bush. Get over it, McCain lost. It happens.


No, Obama is prez because uninformed idiots voted for him. This economy was fantastic 2 years in Bush's second term... The idiots screamed for change, and they got it then. The lib democrats took over congress and TADA!!! CHANGE!!! Then the idiots blame Bush when everything starts tankin, despite the fact that republicans would bring up possible setbacks, and the dems would shoot them down, which in turn invited setbacks. Now the idiots once again clammer for "change"...well, good luck on this change goin better than the last one.

ps... besides disagreement on the Iraq war, would one lib please name on policy instituted by George W. Bush that they disagree with. Just one....please, anybody... if ya got one, let's hear it...
Posted 05 November 2008 06:11 AM Hide Post
No, we did not "all lose". The candidate I supported won. Like all of you who supported Bush, I support my President Elect and will stick by my vote. Like I said - Its hard to lose.

It's just as hard to admit you're wrong. We'll see who's eating crow when it all shakes out.
Nearly 8 million "idiots" decided the election? What a gracious loser. John McCain did much better.

I did not agree with Bush's energy policy.
I did not agree with his Judicial Nominations.
I did not agree with his approach on the War on Terror. It was unilateral isolationist.
I never noticed one thing he did to shore up Social Security OR Healthcare.
Add to that the dismal way his administration handled Katrina.

Your man lost the election in large part bacause of Bush, but primarily because Obama has generated enthusiasm and is a gifted and capable polititian. Even McCain agreed with that assessment. Now, I know it is hard to take, but Obama is the President Elect. Its over and the American people has made their decision. Many of us are happy about that. Feel free to complain all you want - that is your right. Obama won more votes than any President in history. He won the Presidency with "Red" AND "Blue" states and that is that.
quote:
Originally posted by vick13:
Posted 05 November 2008 06:11 AM Hide Post
No, we did not "all lose". The candidate I supported won. Like all of you who supported Bush, I support my President Elect and will stick by my vote. Like I said - Its hard to lose.

It's just as hard to admit you're wrong. We'll see who's eating crow when it all shakes out.


Sort of like bush? I know plenty of people who regret that one.
quote:
Originally posted by meanasasnake:
Lol.....the whine has begun. 349 electoral votes, the largest landslide in a generation. The American people have spoken.


I consider the 1984 election to be in this "generation". The 2008 election pales in comparison when you speak of "landslides"...Reagan received 525 electoral votes, and 59 percent of the popular vote to Mondale's 13 electoral votes and 40 percent of the popular vote.

Many other elections over the course of US history have had higher numbers and percentages.

The sad and scary thing about this election was the number of voters who voted for charisma and charm rather than capability.
quote:
Add to that the dismal way his administration handled Katrina.

Yea you people know dng well he was supposed to fly Air Force one out into the Gulf with a few UN Ambassadors(to keep from resembling a unilateral approach)and sat down with Kat and asked her nicely to turn around.I mean,after all,we don't really know what America did to Katrina to make her hate us so that she destroyed a whole city like New Orleans.

Seriously,How the left blames Bush is a mystery to me.New Orleans had buses available to them.The people had a warning.It ain't like Katrina just sneaked up on them.If you want to blame politicians,blame the local ones who had the keys to the buses that could have took the people out of there.
Obama won but not by a higher percent of voter turnout.

(CNN) -- Americans set a record for number of votes cast in this presidential election but failed to make history with the percentage of voter turnout, experts said.
Curtis Gans, director of American University's Center for the Study of the American Electorate, said Thursday that percentage turnout was lower because Republicans stayed away from the polls.

Disappointment over Sen. John McCain's choice of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate, combined with a perception that the ticket would lose, prompted many would-be Republican voters to ditch the polls on Election Day, Gans said.

"There was real hostility ... amongst moderate Republicans" that McCain would choose the conservative governor, Gans said. "And then there was a gradual perception that the party was going to get whomped."

Nevertheless, between 126.5 million and 128.5 million Americans cast ballots this year, according to a report by the electorate study center. Successful Democratic get-out-the-vote initiatives contributed to that number, which shattered 2004's mark of 122.2 million.

The report surveyed 47 states and the nation's capital. Twenty-two of those states and the District of Columbia reported an increase in voter turnout this year, the center said. GOP turnout increased in only eight of the surveyed states, according to the report.

The percentage of registered voters casting ballots this year is projected at 60.7 to 61.7 percent, according to the center -- a figure much lower than the modern-day record set in 1960 -- 67 percent.

Democrat Barack Obama's campaign is credited with building a sophisticated organization at local levels in key states that energized voters to register and to stand for hours in line to cast early ballots.

Nationwide, early votes totaled at least 31.7 million in at least 30 early voting states, said Michael McDonald, a professor at George Mason University.

McDonald, who also produced projections of voter turnout, estimated Friday that 130.9 million ballots were cast by 61.5 percent of Americans who were eligible to vote. The final tally is expected to be counted by early December, he said.

Gans said many people believed this election's turnout would shatter the 2004 mark because of the high amount of early voters, including African-Americans and younger voters, who historically vote in lower numbers.

"We failed to realize that the registration increase was driven by Democratic and independent registration and that the long lines at the polls were mostly populated by Democrats," he said.

Voter registration increased this year by more than 10 million people, Gans said.

Absentee ballots tend to flow in at the last minute, McDonald said. But this year, with so many people participating in early and absentee voting ahead of the election, there may not be a large flood of absentee ballots, he said.

He said Friday that turnout rates rose in states that became battlegrounds in this election. On the other hand, he said, voter turnout in states that lost battleground status was lower or held steady, compared with 2004.

Battleground state North Carolina's turnout rate had the largest increase from 2004, according to the center. The state reported a 69 percent turnout rate -- up from 56.8 percent in 2004, according to center data.

Missouri, another battleground, reported a record number of voters on Tuesday: 2.9 million. But its turnout percentage -- 69.4 percent -- failed to make history.

In Maine, the secretary of state's office projected a record-setting 80 percent turnout among registered voters, which would break Maine's previous record of 74 percent in 2004.

Georgia, which saw a 61.3 percent turnout, up from 54.7 percent in 2004, also had a record high turnout, according to data from the center.


In 1908 -- when the voter pool was much smaller because African-Americans and women were denied the vote -- 65.7 percent cast ballots in the race between William Howard Taft and William Jennings Bryan.

Towering above this year's turnout was the historic race of 1860, when Abraham Lincoln and Stephen A. Douglas faced off, attracting 81.3 percent.
quote:
Originally posted by vick13:
Posted 05 November 2008 06:11 AM Hide Post
No, we did not "all lose". The candidate I supported won. Like all of you who supported Bush, I support my President Elect and will stick by my vote. Like I said - Its hard to lose.

It's just as hard to admit you're wrong. We'll see who's eating crow when it all shakes out.


The candidate I voted for didn't win. But I intend to support our new president unless and until he does something to lose my respect. What the libtards didn't see over the last eight years is that whether or not you agree, the president is in a position of leadership and your responsibility is to follow that lead. Perhaps I'll call myself "the loyal opposition" because I remain loyal to this country.

Which may just be the fundamental difference between the rational right and the loony left...our allegiance to this country is not dependent upon some temporary resident of the white house.
quote:
Originally posted by meanasasnake:
Nearly 8 million "idiots" decided the election? What a gracious loser. John McCain did much better.

I did not agree with Bush's energy policy.
I did not agree with his Judicial Nominations.
I did not agree with his approach on the War on Terror. It was unilateral isolationist.
I never noticed one thing he did to shore up Social Security OR Healthcare.
Add to that the dismal way his administration handled Katrina.

Your man lost the election in large part bacause of Bush, but primarily because Obama has generated enthusiasm and is a gifted and capable polititian. Even McCain agreed with that assessment. Now, I know it is hard to take, but Obama is the President Elect. Its over and the American people has made their decision. Many of us are happy about that. Feel free to complain all you want - that is your right. Obama won more votes than any President in history. He won the Presidency with "Red" AND "Blue" states and that is that.


I begin by saying, trust me, we are all losers thanx to this.

and you gave me a bunch of general disagreements... why didn't you like his energy policy? was it because it didn't jump on Al Gore's idiotic bandwagon whole heartedly?
why did you not like his judicial nominations? was it because he dodged libs that think they are supposed to MAKE law and not just INTERPRET it?
why did you not like his approach to the War on Terror? Whether you like it or not, we are isolated in large part when it comes to this topic. These crackheads want to destroy America and all of our interests because we are free, and are the greatest country on the planet.
and drop the Katrina idiocy!!! That was poor planning on the part of local and state authorities. Not only SHOULD Bush NOT have stepped in before the hurrican, he COULD NOT!! That is a local and state issue that the fed has to stay away from. If that idiot mayor(which was reelected by the way--talk about idiots!!) and that idiot govener would have handled pre-Katrina properly, then you would have seen a situation more like what happened in Alabama, and Mississippi. They took care of themselves and didn't cry, piss and moan for the gov't to give them everything.

and I agree that Obama has generated enthusiasm...but the enthusiasm of idiots who voted for a committed socialist, who is the most liberal and least qualified prez in history. Hitler and Castro generated enthusiam also...and were both fantastic public speakers...and were both elected in democratic votes...but I think you'd agree that neither were good change.

just by the by...I don't care for Bush all that much myself, so if you think I'm just a committed "red" state guy, you are wrong. Bush has tried to cater to idiot libs for PC purposes, when they would never give him credit no matter what. Libs will always hate Bush, thus he should've stuck to his conservative guns. But he didnt. He hurt himself and the republican party by trying to be bipartisan on issues that he shouldnt have. And I'd venture to guess that many of the issues you dilike him for are ones that were broght to him by libs on that he gave in to.
I am a conservative because that's how our founding fathers envisioned the American people being. Common sense folks that don't want the gov't in their business and money...but that also wouldnt stand with outstreched hand expecting everything from the gov't. Obama wants a nanny state, because that's what socialists want. Big gov't, big taxes, small individual rights....He talks a pretty game, but it will turn Freddy Kruger ugly the more of his absurd policies that get implemented.
So, like I said, uninformed(and misinformed) idiots got this guy in....but as an American I promise to give him the honor and respect that Bush has gotten over the last 8 years. Wink

Add Reply

Post

×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×