This went green?

Why am I here again?

Dangit, I thought this was going to be another thread about how Obama has actually served more time in elected office than Hillary. :(

He plagiarised his acceptance speech.

He will pass an ordinance allowing him to be on anyone's lawn freely.

legendary: This went green?

That was exactly what I was thinking

Did anybody else read:

"He and commissioners still have to negotiate his slavery and benefits package, too. "


Good luck Billy!

Statistically speaking, the more experienced statespeople that won the presedential election have gone on to be worse presidents than those with less experience (i.e. Jack Kennedy and Lyndon Johnston).

I'll admit when you hire someone short on experience you are taking a gamble, but I also think giving someone a break will inspire them to work that much harder. Also, when someone has experience, they don't just bring their good experience, they bring their learned bad habits. I train people to wait tables quite a bit, and I've always had better luck with the people who have never waited tables before. The ones who have waited tables with a different chain for five or more years have trouble adapting to and following different procedures. Not to say managing a city and waiting tables are the same, but I don't imagine the inertia involved in human nature is much different.

Thats a good rule when choosing a hooker.

dogfood

Thats a good rule when choosing a hooker.

And aren't all politicans really just whores at the end of the day?

So for task-oriented jobs you want the noob you can train.

Is being president applicable? Or would experience actually matter, good or otherwise? And would it be possible to say some experience has elements of both, and can't be that clearly defined?

// has experience
// might not get the job at Empanda's.

Generation_D: So for task-oriented jobs you want the noob you can train.

Is being president applicable? Or would experience actually matter, good or otherwise? And would it be possible to say some experience has elements of both, and can't be that clearly defined?

// has experience
// might not get the job at Empanda's.

I'm not so sure hillary's experience argument really has that much weight to it.

it's not like she's got much more than barrack, and when you look at how she's continually made the same mistakes in her campaign while obama has adjusted nicely I think the reason she's losing is clear.

she keeps coming off as nasty and staged, barrack brushes it off like a pro, and hillary just keeps on trying the same thing.
she's taking bad advice. some of her supporters think her next move should be to go at obama harder, but I gotta tell you those people aren't real sharp IMO.

JimmyTheHutt: Lyndon Johnston

Not that I don't disagree with your premise, but using LBJ as an example of a good president?

Well, I wouldn't call waiting tables entirely task oriented. There is a bit more to it than just punching in orders if you want to make any money at it. You need to be able to sell people on what the restaurant happens to be pushing that day, you need to convince a variety of people that they should give you money, you need to be able to moderate your behavior/personality to get the most out of the system. Different types of restaurants have different expectations on how you interact with your customers, different lingo you are expected to use, etc. I've changed chains over the years, and while I can adapt pretty well to the different types of customers I encounter, I do have more trouble adapting to the minor differences in task. I've seen some people with experience excel in a new setting, but I've seen far more crash and burn.

Ultimately it has to be decided on an individual basis. An inexperienced candidate who is willing to learn the system and has the raw talent is often worth cultivating. My point was only that experience shouldn't be the end all be all of picking someone for a job. It's only one factor on what should be a long list of reasons to hire or not hire.

unexplained bacon: I'm not so sure hillary's experience argument really has that much weight to it.

Yep. He has more legislative experience and better legislative accomplishments on complex issues in the first place. I think the experience thing doesn't fly unless you know almost nothing about either of them and are just going off the assumption that she must know more because she's older. Maybe that's why older people vote for her more frequently.

it's not like she's got much more than barrack, and when you look at how she's continually made the same mistakes in her campaign while obama has adjusted nicely I think the reason she's losing is clear.

Yeah, the way the campaign has gone has been the final nail in the coffin of this "experience" argument Hillary's consultants came up with. He's proving right now that he can do a better job of managing a complex organization and that he can pick better people as aides. Ever since January it has seemed to me that Hillary's campaign has gotten more and more inept while Obama seems to be just getting better and better all the time. His speeches, nuanced policy positions, and debate skills are improving all the time. I don't know if this is all him or her or the quality of the people working for them, but Obama is looking more like a real president.

Am I the only person who read that as euthanasia?

Empanda: ... but I don't imagine the inertia involved in human nature is much different.


It ain't. I tried to get a woman at work today to use a pdf of a document and print it, instead of saving a paper original and photocopying it.

Ain't gonna happen. Repeat on a grand scale.

Experience does not equal accomplishment.