Author Topic: This anti-gay/religious freedom law in Indiana  (Read 7662 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Calvin6s

  • Guest
Re: This anti-gay/religious freedom law in Indiana
« Reply #140 on: April 10, 2015, 01:39:36 PM »
CEO's are constantly and consistently unaware of things going on in their company as well.
They are also just as guilty of horrible management and delegation skills.
Happens all the time, every day.

Yes.  The bad ones.  That's why you hear about those.  The idea that for every effective CEO, there is a corrupt or inept CEO seems way off base to me.  That's like me saying for every person that made it through another day, another one was injured or killed.  It must be.  It is on the news every night.

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 3770
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: This anti-gay/religious freedom law in Indiana
« Reply #141 on: April 10, 2015, 01:41:53 PM »
CEO's are constantly and consistently unaware of things going on in their company as well.
They are also just as guilty of horrible management and delegation skills.
Happens all the time, every day.

Yes.  The bad ones.  That's why you hear about those.  The idea that for every effective CEO, there is a corrupt or inept CEO seems way off base to me.  That's like me saying for every person that made it through another day, another one was injured or killed.  It must be.  It is on the news every night.


Ahhh no.
Happens every day in every company my friend.  CEO's are blissfully unaware of a TON of shit happening on their watch.  Even the BEST CEO's.
It has nothing to do with news, or wether a CEO is "good" or "bad".  Just simple logistics.


And no one said for every good CEO there must be a bad one.  I in fact addressed that very point a few posts ago.

I was merely making a point that there are good and bad.  I did not mean to assert that it was split evenly.


« Last Edit: April 10, 2015, 01:51:21 PM by eric42434224 »
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Calvin6s

  • Guest
Re: This anti-gay/religious freedom law in Indiana
« Reply #142 on: April 10, 2015, 07:03:25 PM »
Happens every day in every company my friend.  CEO's are blissfully unaware of a TON of shit happening on their watch. 
You are comparing ineffective, negligent and downright incompetent with omnipotent.  Of course a CEO doesn't know that Jim and Ted are hiding in the restroom to get out of work and will eventually be fired and replaced.  They delegate that stuff.  But you can be sure they wouldn't let the company jet buzz New York and claim they had no idea it was going on.

The thread is trying to disqualify the importance of CEO experience and it just seems juvenile.

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 3770
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: This anti-gay/religious freedom law in Indiana
« Reply #143 on: April 10, 2015, 07:34:41 PM »
Happens every day in every company my friend.  CEO's are blissfully unaware of a TON of shit happening on their watch. 
You are comparing ineffective, negligent and downright incompetent with omnipotent.  Of course a CEO doesn't know that Jim and Ted are hiding in the restroom to get out of work and will eventually be fired and replaced.  They delegate that stuff.  But you can be sure they wouldn't let the company jet buzz New York and claim they had no idea it was going on.

The thread is trying to disqualify the importance of CEO experience and it just seems juvenile.

No, just trying to disqualify anything.  And Im not comparing the extremes like your silly examples.  Just showing the reality of the CEO, and how it is not the end all answer to the POTUS problems.

This CEO/POTUS discussion is taking this thread off topic....perhaps a new thread is in order.
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Calvin6s

  • Guest
Re: This anti-gay/religious freedom law in Indiana
« Reply #144 on: April 10, 2015, 07:37:38 PM »
No, just trying to disqualify anything.  Just showing the reality of the CEO, and how it is not the end all answer to the POTUS problems.

Well, nothing is a be all end all.  CEO experience is definitely a positive.  Government experience is definitely a positive.  Actual accomplishments are definitely a positive.  The proven ability to work well with others is definitely a positive.  But it is of course a conglomeration of the attributes that matter.

But somebody that has never had to seriously run something in their life, where the final burden falls completely on them, really is a must.

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 3770
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: This anti-gay/religious freedom law in Indiana
« Reply #145 on: April 10, 2015, 07:40:38 PM »
No, just trying to disqualify anything.  Just showing the reality of the CEO, and how it is not the end all answer to the POTUS problems.

Well, nothing is a be all end all.  CEO experience is definitely a positive.  Government experience is definitely a positive.  Actual accomplishments are definitely a positive.  The proven ability to work well with others is definitely a positive.  But it is of course a conglomeration of the attributes that matter.

But somebody that has never had to seriously run something in their life, where the final burden falls completely on them, really is a must.


There have been good presidents without that "running something" experience, and not-so-good ones with that experience.  So clearly it is not a must.
Previous experiences can be positive, and just as easily negative.




« Last Edit: April 10, 2015, 08:25:46 PM by eric42434224 »
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline kirksnosehair

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 6679
  • Gender: Male
  • I'M CAPTAIN KIRK!!!!!!!!!!!
    • The ANABASIS
Re: This anti-gay/religious freedom law in Indiana
« Reply #146 on: April 12, 2015, 05:10:43 AM »
Well, to some extent I think I can see what Calvin is trying to say.  In some respects he's right, previous experience is a pretty good indicator of future performance.


Look at a guy like George W. Bush.  An abject failure in the family business who was literally given companies to run that he promptly ran right into the ground.  He was a horrible CEO and an even worse president.  Probably the worst, most damaging presidency any of us will ever see.


So, to some extent, I think I get what Calvin is saying.  Bush had CEO experience before becoming president and he pretty much did the same thing with the country as he did with those companies his papa handed him: he ran them into the ground.

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 3770
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: This anti-gay/religious freedom law in Indiana
« Reply #147 on: April 12, 2015, 07:55:21 AM »
Well, to some extent I think I can see what Calvin is trying to say.  In some respects he's right, previous experience is a pretty good indicator of future performance.


Look at a guy like George W. Bush.  An abject failure in the family business who was literally given companies to run that he promptly ran right into the ground.  He was a horrible CEO and an even worse president.  Probably the worst, most damaging presidency any of us will ever see.


So, to some extent, I think I get what Calvin is saying.  Bush had CEO experience before becoming president and he pretty much did the same thing with the country as he did with those companies his papa handed him: he ran them into the ground.

But other presidents with no corporate CEO experience at all were much better presidents. 
My point is that CEO experience is not necessary for a POTUS.  I say that it may even be a negative one.
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline kingshmegland

  • Couch fucker
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 45001
  • Gender: Male
  • Take that Beethoven, you deaf bastard!!
Re: This anti-gay/religious freedom law in Indiana
« Reply #148 on: April 12, 2015, 08:07:54 AM »
Though being a CEO is like being a politician.  We can look at each President and see their strengths and weakness and point them out.  Right now we need a POTUS that will focus heavy on fixing this country and it's problems and not fix outside these walls.
I don't like country music, but I don't mean to denigrate those who do. And for the people who like country music, denigrate means 'put down'. - Bob Newhart

So wait, we're spelling it wrong and king is spelling it right? What is going on here? :lol -- BlobVanDam

Calvin6s

  • Guest
Re: This anti-gay/religious freedom law in Indiana
« Reply #149 on: April 12, 2015, 03:44:47 PM »
Let's just get rid of resumes altogether.  They should just tell us what they are going to do without any proof of concept.  Sounds like a wonderful plan.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 21337
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: This anti-gay/religious freedom law in Indiana
« Reply #150 on: April 13, 2015, 10:33:46 AM »
I thought it was pretty clear that we were talking about the CEOs that have a net worth into the hundreds of millions of dollars. The guy I used to work for was technically a CEO, brought home about $500k per year, and was one of the nicest guys I've ever met. Shit, Collin Stover is by definition a CEO. There's no doubt that there are a handful of good guys with a net worth like that, but the vast majority with that kind of portfolio are sleezy. We'll go back to Romney for a second. How much of his worth is in tax havens in the Cayman Islands? I've read anywhere from $15m to $25million. Sure, it's legal on paper, but it doesn't mean it's not shady. Those laws only exist because of people like Romney. Would you really be comfortable with someone like Donald Trump running this country? Sure he knows how to make a a lot of money turn into even more money, but that doesn't mean he's a good guy who has America's best intentions in mind. I'd be willing to bet my life that his only reason for wanting to be president would be to increase his worth. That's not the type of person I want to vote into presidency (or any public office).

And do you know how small that first group really is? 

You take the top 100 CEOs by pay across any given year (CEO pay fluctuates wildly, by virtue of the nature of the pay) and only about 30 earn more than $20 million.   (See here for 2013:  https://graphics.wsj.com/executive-salary-compensation-2014/?year=2013&sel=1268)

Look, you don't get to change the definitions to suit the arguments.   It's either a CEO or not a CEO, and I for one don't define it with any variable that is "$100's of millions of dollars".  You either run a company or you do not.   It is THAT skillset I am talking about, and in fact, I would probably EXCLUDE the "celebrity" CEOs, or at least some of them.  I'm not advocating that Ralph Lauren, for example, be our next President, yet he is mentioned in the "top earning CEO" discussions by virtue of a few good years.

Trump?  Of course not, but not because of his skills or his title, but because of the man he is (he wants celebrity a bit too much for my taste in President).  But for every Trump, there are five guys like Immelt, Chennault, Cote, McEnerny, Buffett, etc. that would make outstanding Presidents.

The relative ignorance of CEOs and what they do and why they do it is part of the problem; there's this knee-jerk reaction that isn't really rooted in any reality.  The election STILL has to be run, and the candidate STILL has to be vetted.  Ask, and hopefully get answers, for all these questions.  But don't ultimately vote for the guy who runs the best campaign and can glad-hand the best; vote for the guy that can actually execute on their vision and make their responsible entity the best it can possibly be. 

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 21337
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: This anti-gay/religious freedom law in Indiana
« Reply #151 on: April 13, 2015, 10:35:44 AM »

...a selflesness, a sense of duty and obligation, a need to serve,... 

Which is ironic, since that describes Romney to a "T". 

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 21337
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: This anti-gay/religious freedom law in Indiana
« Reply #152 on: April 13, 2015, 10:45:53 AM »
Is there really any doubt at this point about Obama's lack of CEO ability?  I thought that dispute had been settled.
But the idea that Obama has damaged the economy is simply not true, and the facts on the ground agree with this.

Actually, you brought that up.  I was talking about the fact that Obama constantly doesn't know what is going on in his own administration.   Everything seems to be news to him.  And it started before he entered the White House.  He didn't know about Rezko or Wright or .... the list seems endless.  A CEO's job is to delegate and manage those he delegated.

CEO's are constantly and consistently unaware of things going on in their company as well.
They are also just as guilty of horrible management and delegation skills.
Happens all the time, every day.

Not as much as you'd think, and after a time, that is the kind of thing that leads to an "EX-CEO".  Jack Welch was known for walking into a plant and walking up to the plant manager and knowing details that the PM didn't even know.  One could argue that the "unawareness" of both CEOs and Presidents is irrelevant.   I don't agree with the "on my watch" type of argument in most cases.  Some things, where there is a lack of process or accountability, sure, but most of the arguments in this vein are a way to attach more sins to someone that is already target for disparagement.   

Look, you made the point about "generalizaing" above, and you're right:  I rail on that, and I will continue to do so.   But that doesn't mean that the converse is part of my argument.    I don't believe ANY CEO is automatically a great politician.   I don't believe ALL CEOs have the tools to be a great politician.   I don't believe you have to be a CEO to be a good leader.   But it is fair to say that I believe AS A GENERAL PROPOSITION, successful CEOs have more of the necessary skills to be a good President than what we generally see today in national elections.    I know you disagree, and that's fine, that's what the debate is about.   

What I think it is the important takeaway is that the process does not do this weeding out for us.  The national election process, with the reliance on quibbling about non sequitors that have nothing to do with the ability to lead ("Did he inhale or not?") is presently geared to highlighting the best campaigner, not the best candidate, and that is an important distinction.   We can cite specific examples all day long with no regard whatsoever for whether they are part of the exception or part of the rule, and of course we'll have the partisan comments like the Bush one which in addition to being purely opinion (A Quinnipiac Poll in 2014 had him losing the honor of "Worst President Ever" to the current President) don't add one speck of positive to the conversation, but at the end of the day, the process DOES NOT get us the best possible candidate for the office.  If it gets a good one, it is only dumb luck.   
« Last Edit: April 13, 2015, 11:01:00 AM by Stadler »

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 3770
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: This anti-gay/religious freedom law in Indiana
« Reply #153 on: April 13, 2015, 11:02:01 AM »

...a selflesness, a sense of duty and obligation, a need to serve,... 

Which is ironic, since that describes Romney to a "T".

Well that certainly is a matter of opinion.  An opinion you are certainly entitled to.
The tax shelters certainly allow for an opposing opinion.


Not as much as you'd think, and after a time, that is the kind of thing that leads to an "EX-CEO".  Jack Welch was known for walking into a plant and walking up to the plant manager and knowing details that the PM didn't even know.  One could argue that the "unawareness" of both CEOs and Presidents is irrelevant.   I don't agree with the "on my watch" type of argument in most cases.  Some things, where there is a lack of process or accountability, sure, but most of the arguments in this vein are a way to attach more sins to someone that is already target for disparagement.   

Look, you made the point about "generalizaing" above, and you're right:  I rail on that, and I will continue to do so.   But that doesn't mean that the converse is part of my argument.    I don't believe ANY CEO is automatically a great politician.   I don't believe ALL CEOs have the tools to be a great politician.   I don't believe you have to be a CEO to be a good leader.   But it is fair to say that I believe AS A GENERAL PROPOSITION, successful CEOs have more of the necessary skills to be a good President than what we generally see today in national elections.    I know you disagree, and that's fine, that's what the debate is about.   

What I think it is the important takeaway is that the process does not do this weeding out for us.  The national election process, with the reliance on quibbling about non sequitors that have nothing to do with the ability to lead ("Did he inhale or not?") is presently geared to highlighting the best campaigner, not the best candidate, and that is an important distinction.   We can cite specific examples all day long with no regard whatsoever for whether they are part of the exception or part of the rule, and of course we'll have the partisan comments like the Bush one which in addition to being purely opinion (A Quinnipiac Poll in 2014 had him losing the honor of "Worst President Ever" to the current President) don't add one speck of positive to the conversation, but at the end of the day, the process DOES NOT get us the best possible candidate for the office.  If it gets a good one, it is only dumb luck.


We advise business owners, including all types of CEOs' all the time, and it happens every time.  A CEO that says they know everything that is going on is either lying or delusional.  That is a bad CEO.  A CEO that is honest are lives in reality knows that they do not know everything going on in their company.

And I never said a CEO will be, or couldnt be, a good President.  I clearly said that I find many of the traits of a CEO do not align with what I think are good POTUS traits.


« Last Edit: April 13, 2015, 11:19:17 AM by eric42434224 »
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 21337
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: This anti-gay/religious freedom law in Indiana
« Reply #154 on: April 13, 2015, 02:34:03 PM »

And I never said a CEO will be, or couldnt be, a good President.  I clearly said that I find many of the traits of a CEO do not align with what I think are good POTUS traits.

I understand that.  I know what you said.   I am merely disagreeing with that opinion on alignment, and offering that most people - and you haven't offered anything yet that allows me to conclude that you are not in this group - don't actually know much about what a CEO does, or how they do it, or what the optimal skillset is.    I'm sure if you were in my shoes you wouldn't accept that premise when the data to back it up is so off the mark (apparently all CEOs make over $100m a year, bury all their money in the Bahamas, lie, are delusional, and cheat). 
« Last Edit: April 13, 2015, 02:57:23 PM by Stadler »

Calvin6s

  • Guest
Re: This anti-gay/religious freedom law in Indiana
« Reply #155 on: April 13, 2015, 02:43:15 PM »
You are comparing ineffective, negligent and downright incompetent with omnipotent.

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 3770
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: This anti-gay/religious freedom law in Indiana
« Reply #156 on: April 13, 2015, 05:51:58 PM »

And I never said a CEO will be, or couldnt be, a good President.  I clearly said that I find many of the traits of a CEO do not align with what I think are good POTUS traits.

I understand that.  I know what you said.   I am merely disagreeing with that opinion on alignment, and offering that most people - and you haven't offered anything yet that allows me to conclude that you are not in this group - don't actually know much about what a CEO does, or how they do it, or what the optimal skillset is.    I'm sure if you were in my shoes you wouldn't accept that premise when the data to back it up is so off the mark (apparently all CEOs make over $100m a year, bury all their money in the Bahamas, lie, are delusional, and cheat).

I only offer an position that is logical and reasonable.  I personally dont give a rats ass what "group" you conclude I am in or not, nor do I care if you feel you must condescendingly generalize what this "group" knows about CEO's. 

You say you know what I said, but if you would have read my posts, you would have read that I (and my firm) advises CEO's and business owners.  I have clients that are business owners and CEO's.  So, yes, I have indeed offered something to you to conclude that I know what CEO's are and what they do.

Just try refuting the position without using logical fallacy arguments (ad hominem anyone?), and then perhaps there can be a meaningful debate.
Or simply accept that others have opposing opinions and move on.

Better yet, we can get back to the thread topic.

« Last Edit: April 13, 2015, 06:47:10 PM by eric42434224 »
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 21337
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: This anti-gay/religious freedom law in Indiana
« Reply #157 on: April 14, 2015, 11:48:14 AM »

And I never said a CEO will be, or couldnt be, a good President.  I clearly said that I find many of the traits of a CEO do not align with what I think are good POTUS traits.

I understand that.  I know what you said.   I am merely disagreeing with that opinion on alignment, and offering that most people - and you haven't offered anything yet that allows me to conclude that you are not in this group - don't actually know much about what a CEO does, or how they do it, or what the optimal skillset is.    I'm sure if you were in my shoes you wouldn't accept that premise when the data to back it up is so off the mark (apparently all CEOs make over $100m a year, bury all their money in the Bahamas, lie, are delusional, and cheat).

I only offer an position that is logical and reasonable.  I personally dont give a rats ass what "group" you conclude I am in or not, nor do I care if you feel you must condescendingly generalize what this "group" knows about CEO's. 

You say you know what I said, but if you would have read my posts, you would have read that I (and my firm) advises CEO's and business owners.  I have clients that are business owners and CEO's.  So, yes, I have indeed offered something to you to conclude that I know what CEO's are and what they do.

Just try refuting the position without using logical fallacy arguments (ad hominem anyone?), and then perhaps there can be a meaningful debate.
Or simply accept that others have opposing opinions and move on.

Better yet, we can get back to the thread topic.

Thanks for the lecture, and the instructions on how to debate with you.  I'll take them under advisement.   But I'm clearly not the one that has the issue with people not agreeing with me; this only went south when I refused to acknowledge that you may be right.  Nothing "ad hominem" or "condescending" about that.

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 3770
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: This anti-gay/religious freedom law in Indiana
« Reply #158 on: April 14, 2015, 01:42:55 PM »

And I never said a CEO will be, or couldnt be, a good President.  I clearly said that I find many of the traits of a CEO do not align with what I think are good POTUS traits.

I understand that.  I know what you said.   I am merely disagreeing with that opinion on alignment, and offering that most people - and you haven't offered anything yet that allows me to conclude that you are not in this group - don't actually know much about what a CEO does, or how they do it, or what the optimal skillset is.    I'm sure if you were in my shoes you wouldn't accept that premise when the data to back it up is so off the mark (apparently all CEOs make over $100m a year, bury all their money in the Bahamas, lie, are delusional, and cheat).

I only offer an position that is logical and reasonable.  I personally dont give a rats ass what "group" you conclude I am in or not, nor do I care if you feel you must condescendingly generalize what this "group" knows about CEO's. 

You say you know what I said, but if you would have read my posts, you would have read that I (and my firm) advises CEO's and business owners.  I have clients that are business owners and CEO's.  So, yes, I have indeed offered something to you to conclude that I know what CEO's are and what they do.

Just try refuting the position without using logical fallacy arguments (ad hominem anyone?), and then perhaps there can be a meaningful debate.
Or simply accept that others have opposing opinions and move on.

Better yet, we can get back to the thread topic.

Thanks for the lecture, and the instructions on how to debate with you.  I'll take them under advisement.   But I'm clearly not the one that has the issue with people not agreeing with me; this only went south when I refused to acknowledge that you may be right.  Nothing "ad hominem" or "condescending" about that.

It wasnt meant as a lecture, but I felt it needed to be said. 

It wasnt meant to be "instructions" on how to debate.  But when you attack the person presenting the argument, instead of addressing the agument itself, that is Ad Hominem.  Logical Fallacies are not productive. 

Also, please note, I have no issue with you disagreeing with me.  I have even stated that I am not positioning it as the only truth, but merely my opinion.  I have no need for you to acknowledge anything, and you are entitled to your opinion.

And you might re-read your post about the "group" some, including myself, were a part of, in your opinion, regarding the subject.  That very easily can be read as condescending.

Other than that, perhaps, as I have mentioned before, it is time to open a CEO thread, or just get back to the thread topic.

Thanks and have a fantastic day.   :tup


« Last Edit: April 14, 2015, 01:53:45 PM by eric42434224 »
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Online El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 23641
  • Bad Craziness
Re: This anti-gay/religious freedom law in Indiana
« Reply #159 on: April 29, 2015, 11:11:04 AM »
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/03/30/the-first-church-of-cannabis-was-approved-after-indianas-religious-freedom-law-was-passed/

LOL. My hunch is that the state will figure out some reason why this won't fly, but I love the attempt. I also love that the first commandment is Don't Be An Asshole.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Back for the Attack
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 41809
  • Gender: Male
  • Postwhore Emeritus
Re: This anti-gay/religious freedom law in Indiana
« Reply #160 on: April 29, 2015, 12:20:39 PM »
:clap:
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Online Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 22170
  • Gender: Male
Re: This anti-gay/religious freedom law in Indiana
« Reply #161 on: April 29, 2015, 12:43:50 PM »
Awesome  :lol