I've never seen a CEO inspire anyone to do anything.
I have. Obviously you haven't paid much attention to those CEO's that are successful leaders.
No CEO is a thing without a good staff to delegate responsibilities to.
That is true and the successful do a good job of selecting those that will fill those positions.
Additionally, I've never met a CEO that did not hog all the credit for what his underlings performed.
I have seen many that credit the workers for the success of the company just as most good coaches credit the players publicly.
Obama can deliver a prepared speech using a teleprompter very well and he is decent at taking coaching from those around him. He may be dangerous if left to make decisions and think on his own. How history which is very forgiving will treat him remains to be seen.
ki said....fairmon, even with all that massive equipment and advanced military weapontry used in Vietnam, do you know what brought down many of the choppers there? Peasants fashioning bamboo into arrow like rods, aiming them just right to enter between the blades of the choppers and those powerful choppers worth thousands, hundred of thousands came spiraling down like dead birds falling from the sky.
Your sources suck....where did you find that myth? You must like and watch a lot of Rambo type movies.
rickaroo said... We don't have a problem with healthy competition or people who want to make more money, and we acknowledge the fact that we are indeed NOT all equal in every way. What we mean is an equality of OPPORTUNITY, or at least as much as that is possible.
I generally agree with the above statement.
As it stands now, there is no equality of opportunity. Poverty-wage jobs, ridiculously expensive education, health care that is still too expensive for many people to afford (even with Obamacare, there are over 30 million people without health insurance), and a government that has the super-rich and the fat-cat corporatists pulling its strings and rigging the system in its favor prevent us from having any true equality of opportunity.
I disagree with who is doing the string pulling. The governments legally participate in black mail of businesses and some elected individuals unashamedly solicit favors. Most large corporations make major contributions to worthwhile causes and education. Many small businesses make significant contributions to communities. Government involvement beyond necessary regulations actually drive up cost for those that can least afford it. Government for their own selfish reasons enable the larger businesses to displace mom and pop operations.
Can you name a few of those companies you think are making a greater return on their investment than the risk they have? Where were all the business bashers when so many were losing money and struggling to survive? I do not include such mismanaged as GM, Fannie and Freddie as responsible well managed operations. Who loses more when a business fails?
fairmon: without trying to avoid collateral damage
Strategies like fairmon suggest gave birth to al-qaeda, ISIS/ISIL and a host of other groups in that region. Remember Rumsfeld strategy to hit'em and hit'em hard?
Obviously you ignored my preference of zero involvement. to repeat:
My preference would be 100% out of the middle east and north Africa plus most of the 105 military bases around the world. No involvement and no arms or financial aid. Use the funds to assure a strong and ready military to protect the U.S. and provide the resources necessary to establish secure borders.
Without that the alternative I proposed is nothing like ever attempted since Japan. We ignored Japan until Pearl Harbor and eventually decided they had to be stopped. They have been peaceful and successful since. My strategy in the middle east would be more devastating than what Japan experienced. There would be no one left to be successful or peaceful.
zabbler, an even better suggestion would be america should consider this a *teachable * moment in what happens when you try to fight a war by proxy, among other things such as this operation (bush adventure), was doomed from the word go. Proxies get to call the shots in proxy wars and can even threaten to turn to the enemy side if proxy supporters doesn't pay up or pay more. There have been so many fringe groups paid to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan that the count was long lost and no one knows for sure who the enemy is anymore
Therefore the U.S. should do what?
You wax eloquently at length and say essentially nothing except like the POTUS place blame.
Librul you were on a roll until you hit the STOP regarding social movements, primarily welfare programs....My opinion is:
Social movements advanced under the banners of equality, brotherhood and sustainabliity are "socialist agendas".
Assure an education is obtained and an opportunity available is the right agenda.
Know when to hold'em, know when to fold'em, Go all in or all out. aggressively wipe out all terrorist group doing whatever it takes without trying to avoid collateral damage. Or, get totally out of the quagmire and let them take each other out until there is a country with which to go to war. Collateral damage in a wipe them out strategy would not likely be any greater than what terrorist groups will do.
Should we declare war with ISIS let's hope there is more success than seen with the war on drugs, war on poverty, war on obesity, war on illiteracy....mmmmmm is there even one war where there is evidence of a win or measureable progress? Perhaps if we selected one and devoted the necessary resources the results may be better.
You all need to read CJ Werleman's "Why ISIS Can't Be Defeated"
Ki, no doubt you agree with him. From whence does his expertise come? Does he make a logical viable recommendation about what the right course of action would be?
Not to change the story, but ESPN says less than 1% of abusers in NJ got the same deal as Rice:
What words would you use to change the story or go off topic?