United We Stand - uwsboard.com

Virginia Tech fans discussing politics, religion, and football
It is currently Thu Dec 14, 2017 2:58 am

Time zone: America/New_York


UWS DWF UWS Lunch UWS Sports UWS Help TSL Football TSL Lounge TSL MBB Acronyms Top 25 Topics


Forum rules


Please be civil.



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 108 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Dec 01, 2017 8:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 10:05 pm
Posts: 591
HokieFanDC wrote:
How can you be sure?


Image

_________________
#JusticeForNolan


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 01, 2017 10:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 8:29 pm
Posts: 5797
RiverguyVT wrote:
133743Hokie wrote:
RiverguyVT wrote:
I doubt his time at work changed much at all, if any. Secy of St isn't working more hours than an Exxon CEO

Disagree. Daily time commitment as SoS will be much more than CEO.

Yeah. I'm sorry, 13334893538. That's just stupid.
Any chance you're a beltway guy?
I'm laughing ...

:lol: :lol:

No, I'm the retired chairman of the board of a mid sized company that spent 20 years working with the department of state and intelligence community on their domestic and overseas facilities. What's your base of knowledge?

The fact that you think being CEO of Exxon required more time than being SoS leads me to think you have no idea what either job is about.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 02, 2017 9:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:58 pm
Posts: 19078
Location: Fake Dossier Writing Center
Party: Draintheswamp

_________________
"Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants."
- Gen. Omar Bradley


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 02, 2017 11:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:30 pm
Posts: 9541
133743Hokie wrote:
RiverguyVT wrote:
133743Hokie wrote:
RiverguyVT wrote:
I doubt his time at work changed much at all, if any. Secy of St isn't working more hours than an Exxon CEO

Disagree. Daily time commitment as SoS will be much more than CEO.

Yeah. I'm sorry, 13334893538. That's just stupid.
Any chance you're a beltway guy?
I'm laughing ...

:lol: :lol:

No, I'm the retired chairman of the board of a mid sized company that spent 20 years working with the department of state and intelligence community on their domestic and overseas facilities. What's your base of knowledge?

The fact that you think being CEO of Exxon required more time than being SoS leads me to think you have no idea what either job is about.

I surely wouldn't confuse a mid sized company with Exxon.
A CEO position at a company like Exxon is essentially an apex job in the entire universe of jobs, and gained by MERIT, not political legerdemain.

Absolutely, the SoS does not put more time in than Exxon CEOship. I'd say both are incredibly time-consuming beyond what I would be accustomed to or want.

The private sector job is more accountable, for one thing, and subject to constant jeopardy and scrutiny. A CEO could lose his job any day, for any decision. Not so much in the bureaucratic universe.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 02, 2017 11:39 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 8:29 pm
Posts: 5797
RiverguyVT wrote:
133743Hokie wrote:
RiverguyVT wrote:
133743Hokie wrote:
RiverguyVT wrote:
I doubt his time at work changed much at all, if any. Secy of St isn't working more hours than an Exxon CEO

Disagree. Daily time commitment as SoS will be much more than CEO.

Yeah. I'm sorry, 13334893538. That's just stupid.
Any chance you're a beltway guy?
I'm laughing ...

:lol: :lol:

No, I'm the retired chairman of the board of a mid sized company that spent 20 years working with the department of state and intelligence community on their domestic and overseas facilities. What's your base of knowledge?

The fact that you think being CEO of Exxon required more time than being SoS leads me to think you have no idea what either job is about.

I surely wouldn't confuse a mid sized company with Exxon.
A CEO position at a company like Exxon is essentially an apex job in the entire universe of jobs, and gained by MERIT, not political legerdemain.

Absolutely, the SoS does not put more time in than Exxon CEOship. I'd say both are incredibly time-consuming beyond what I would be accustomed to or want.

The private sector job is more accountable, for one thing, and subject to constant jeopardy and scrutiny. A CEO could lose his job any day, for any decision. Not so much in the bureaucratic universe.

You have no sense of the jobs or their responsibilities. To say that the time commitment and responsibilities of being Exxon CEO is greater than that of SoS is ludicrous. You think being the Exxon CEO is more accountable? Subjected to constant jeopardy and scrutiny at a higher level than the SoS? Please


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 02, 2017 11:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:30 pm
Posts: 9541
133743Hokie wrote:
RiverguyVT wrote:
133743Hokie wrote:
RiverguyVT wrote:
133743Hokie wrote:
RiverguyVT wrote:
I doubt his time at work changed much at all, if any. Secy of St isn't working more hours than an Exxon CEO

Disagree. Daily time commitment as SoS will be much more than CEO.

Yeah. I'm sorry, 13334893538. That's just stupid.
Any chance you're a beltway guy?
I'm laughing ...

:lol: :lol:

No, I'm the retired chairman of the board of a mid sized company that spent 20 years working with the department of state and intelligence community on their domestic and overseas facilities. What's your base of knowledge?

The fact that you think being CEO of Exxon required more time than being SoS leads me to think you have no idea what either job is about.

I surely wouldn't confuse a mid sized company with Exxon.
A CEO position at a company like Exxon is essentially an apex job in the entire universe of jobs, and gained by MERIT, not political legerdemain.

Absolutely, the SoS does not put more time in than Exxon CEOship. I'd say both are incredibly time-consuming beyond what I would be accustomed to or want.

The private sector job is more accountable, for one thing, and subject to constant jeopardy and scrutiny. A CEO could lose his job any day, for any decision. Not so much in the bureaucratic universe.

You have no sense of the jobs or their responsibilities. To say that the time commitment and responsibilities of being Exxon CEO is greater than that of SoS is ludicrous. You think being the Exxon CEO is more accountable? Subjected to constant jeopardy and scrutiny at a higher level than the SoS? Please

Saying over &I over that I'm wrong...doesn't make you right.
Yes. One job is based on merit. The other, not so much so.
My simple assumption is that high-level merit based jobs take more time than high-level appointments by favor. Merit based jobs are subject to more accountability, by their very nature, than appointment-based government ones.

Are you really suggesting that Hillary! put more time & effort in to her role, specifically, the constitutional requirements of the post (and not all of that extra-curricular fundraising, malfeasance, Foundation, and highjinks) than did Tillerson at Exxon during those same years?? THAT'S what is laughable.

Yes. He was more accountable for his efforts and results than she was. Unquestionably.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 02, 2017 2:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:20 pm
Posts: 9803
Location: New York, NY
RiverguyVT wrote:
133743Hokie wrote:
RiverguyVT wrote:
133743Hokie wrote:
RiverguyVT wrote:
133743Hokie wrote:
[quote="RiverguyVT"]I doubt his time at work changed much at all, if any. Secy of St isn't working more hours than an Exxon CEO

Disagree. Daily time commitment as SoS will be much more than CEO.

Yeah. I'm sorry, 13334893538. That's just stupid.
Any chance you're a beltway guy?
I'm laughing ...

:lol: :lol:

No, I'm the retired chairman of the board of a mid sized company that spent 20 years working with the department of state and intelligence community on their domestic and overseas facilities. What's your base of knowledge?

The fact that you think being CEO of Exxon required more time than being SoS leads me to think you have no idea what either job is about.

I surely wouldn't confuse a mid sized company with Exxon.
A CEO position at a company like Exxon is essentially an apex job in the entire universe of jobs, and gained by MERIT, not political legerdemain.

Absolutely, the SoS does not put more time in than Exxon CEOship. I'd say both are incredibly time-consuming beyond what I would be accustomed to or want.

The private sector job is more accountable, for one thing, and subject to constant jeopardy and scrutiny. A CEO could lose his job any day, for any decision. Not so much in the bureaucratic universe.

You have no sense of the jobs or their responsibilities. To say that the time commitment and responsibilities of being Exxon CEO is greater than that of SoS is ludicrous. You think being the Exxon CEO is more accountable? Subjected to constant jeopardy and scrutiny at a higher level than the SoS? Please

Saying over &I over that I'm wrong...doesn't make you right.
Yes. One job is based on merit. The other, not so much so.
My simple assumption is that high-level merit based jobs take more time than high-level appointments by favor. Merit based jobs are subject to more accountability, by their very nature, than appointment-based government ones.

Are you really suggesting that Hillary! put more time & effort in to her role, specifically, the constitutional requirements of the post (and not all of that extra-curricular fundraising, malfeasance, Foundation, and highjinks) than did Tillerson at Exxon during those same years?? THAT'S what is laughable.

Yes. He was more accountable for his efforts and results than she was. Unquestionably.[/quote]

This is a silly thing to debate because none of us really know.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

_________________
"Leadership: Whatever happens, you're responsible. If it doesn't happen, you're responsible." - DT(2013)

"We're not going to own it. I'm not going to own it. I can tell you the Republicans are not going to own it." - DT(2017)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 02, 2017 3:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 8:29 pm
Posts: 5797
RiverguyVT wrote:
133743Hokie wrote:
RiverguyVT wrote:
133743Hokie wrote:
RiverguyVT wrote:
133743Hokie wrote:
Disagree. Daily time commitment as SoS will be much more than CEO.

Yeah. I'm sorry, 13334893538. That's just stupid.
Any chance you're a beltway guy?
I'm laughing ...

:lol: :lol:

No, I'm the retired chairman of the board of a mid sized company that spent 20 years working with the department of state and intelligence community on their domestic and overseas facilities. What's your base of knowledge?

The fact that you think being CEO of Exxon required more time than being SoS leads me to think you have no idea what either job is about.

I surely wouldn't confuse a mid sized company with Exxon.
A CEO position at a company like Exxon is essentially an apex job in the entire universe of jobs, and gained by MERIT, not political legerdemain.

Absolutely, the SoS does not put more time in than Exxon CEOship. I'd say both are incredibly time-consuming beyond what I would be accustomed to or want.

The private sector job is more accountable, for one thing, and subject to constant jeopardy and scrutiny. A CEO could lose his job any day, for any decision. Not so much in the bureaucratic universe.

You have no sense of the jobs or their responsibilities. To say that the time commitment and responsibilities of being Exxon CEO is greater than that of SoS is ludicrous. You think being the Exxon CEO is more accountable? Subjected to constant jeopardy and scrutiny at a higher level than the SoS? Please

Saying over &I over that I'm wrong...doesn't make you right.
Yes. One job is based on merit. The other, not so much so.
My simple assumption is that high-level merit based jobs take more time than high-level appointments by favor. Merit based jobs are subject to more accountability, by their very nature, than appointment-based government ones.

Are you really suggesting that Hillary! put more time & effort in to her role, specifically, the constitutional requirements of the post (and not all of that extra-curricular fundraising, malfeasance, Foundation, and highjinks) than did Tillerson at Exxon during those same years?? THAT'S what is laughable.

Yes. He was more accountable for his efforts and results than she was. Unquestionably.

Your "simple assumption" is just that, simple, and it's wrong. To intimate that the SoS job is just an appointment to pay back a favor does a gross disservice to the role and responsibility and to those that have served in that capacity. If this is how you see things no wonder you think being CEO of Exxon is a harder and more time consuming job.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 02, 2017 4:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:30 pm
Posts: 9541
I would indeed suggest that the last 2 secy's of st had not earned their ways into the most important foreign relations job in the world, by way of merit nor accomplishment in prior foreign relations feats or advancements... . Not just no, but hell no. I doubt I'm alone in that view. It isn't my view that is doing any disservice...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 02, 2017 5:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:57 pm
Posts: 8447
RiverguyVT wrote:
I would indeed suggest that the last 2 secy's of st had not earned their ways into the most important foreign relations job in the world, by way of merit nor accomplishment in prior foreign relations feats or advancements... . Not just no, but hell no. I doubt I'm alone in that view. It isn't my view that is doing any disservice...


I'm not sure if Tillerson earned it anymore than they did. He has done a pretty pitiful job in his short tenure. The grand idea that the dept. should shrink is fine, but not putting an organizational plan in place to make that happen, is pitiful.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 02, 2017 5:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:58 pm
Posts: 19078
Location: Fake Dossier Writing Center
Party: Draintheswamp
HokieFanDC wrote:
RiverguyVT wrote:
I would indeed suggest that the last 2 secy's of st had not earned their ways into the most important foreign relations job in the world, by way of merit nor accomplishment in prior foreign relations feats or advancements... . Not just no, but hell no. I doubt I'm alone in that view. It isn't my view that is doing any disservice...


I'm not sure if Tillerson earned it anymore than they did. He has done a pretty pitiful job in his short tenure. The grand idea that the dept. should shrink is fine, but not putting an organizational plan in place to make that happen, is pitiful.


What is the consequence of not including an extra layer of bureaucracy here?

_________________
"Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants."
- Gen. Omar Bradley


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 02, 2017 5:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:57 pm
Posts: 8447
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
RiverguyVT wrote:
I would indeed suggest that the last 2 secy's of st had not earned their ways into the most important foreign relations job in the world, by way of merit nor accomplishment in prior foreign relations feats or advancements... . Not just no, but hell no. I doubt I'm alone in that view. It isn't my view that is doing any disservice...


I'm not sure if Tillerson earned it anymore than they did. He has done a pretty pitiful job in his short tenure. The grand idea that the dept. should shrink is fine, but not putting an organizational plan in place to make that happen, is pitiful.


What is the consequence of not including an extra layer of bureaucracy here?


Not filling the top level diplomat positions means they are lacking leadership in key areas.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 02, 2017 5:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:58 pm
Posts: 19078
Location: Fake Dossier Writing Center
Party: Draintheswamp
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
RiverguyVT wrote:
I would indeed suggest that the last 2 secy's of st had not earned their ways into the most important foreign relations job in the world, by way of merit nor accomplishment in prior foreign relations feats or advancements... . Not just no, but hell no. I doubt I'm alone in that view. It isn't my view that is doing any disservice...


I'm not sure if Tillerson earned it anymore than they did. He has done a pretty pitiful job in his short tenure. The grand idea that the dept. should shrink is fine, but not putting an organizational plan in place to make that happen, is pitiful.


What is the consequence of not including an extra layer of bureaucracy here?


Not filling the top level diplomat positions means they are lacking leadership in key areas.


Still don't see a problem.

_________________
"Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants."
- Gen. Omar Bradley


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 02, 2017 5:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:57 pm
Posts: 8447
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
RiverguyVT wrote:
I would indeed suggest that the last 2 secy's of st had not earned their ways into the most important foreign relations job in the world, by way of merit nor accomplishment in prior foreign relations feats or advancements... . Not just no, but hell no. I doubt I'm alone in that view. It isn't my view that is doing any disservice...


I'm not sure if Tillerson earned it anymore than they did. He has done a pretty pitiful job in his short tenure. The grand idea that the dept. should shrink is fine, but not putting an organizational plan in place to make that happen, is pitiful.


What is the consequence of not including an extra layer of bureaucracy here?


Not filling the top level diplomat positions means they are lacking leadership in key areas.


Still don't see a problem.


Yeh, we all know you don't see a problem. That doesn't mean it isn't.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 02, 2017 5:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:58 pm
Posts: 19078
Location: Fake Dossier Writing Center
Party: Draintheswamp
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
RiverguyVT wrote:
I would indeed suggest that the last 2 secy's of st had not earned their ways into the most important foreign relations job in the world, by way of merit nor accomplishment in prior foreign relations feats or advancements... . Not just no, but hell no. I doubt I'm alone in that view. It isn't my view that is doing any disservice...


I'm not sure if Tillerson earned it anymore than they did. He has done a pretty pitiful job in his short tenure. The grand idea that the dept. should shrink is fine, but not putting an organizational plan in place to make that happen, is pitiful.


What is the consequence of not including an extra layer of bureaucracy here?


Not filling the top level diplomat positions means they are lacking leadership in key areas.


Still don't see a problem.


Yeh, we all know you don't see a problem. That doesn't mean it isn't.


That's not an argument.

HokieFanDC : "please, won't somebody think of the TPS reports?!"

I do like your idea for reducing our State Department to be closer to that of a nation whose budget for their equivalent is miniscule compared to ours.

_________________
"Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants."
- Gen. Omar Bradley


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 02, 2017 6:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:57 pm
Posts: 8447
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
I'm not sure if Tillerson earned it anymore than they did. He has done a pretty pitiful job in his short tenure. The grand idea that the dept. should shrink is fine, but not putting an organizational plan in place to make that happen, is pitiful.


What is the consequence of not including an extra layer of bureaucracy here?


Not filling the top level diplomat positions means they are lacking leadership in key areas.


Still don't see a problem.


Yeh, we all know you don't see a problem. That doesn't mean it isn't.


That's not an argument.

HokieFanDC : "please, won't somebody think of the TPS reports?!"

I do like your idea for reducing our State Department to be closer to that of a nation whose budget for their equivalent is miniscule compared to ours.


LOL, your argument is that you don't see it as a problem, there is no rebuttal to your general opinion.

Yeh, it's a good idea. Done properly, it could be awesome. Done the way it's being done, ridiculous.

How would you feel if the Navy had multiple open commander and caption positions, for the pure sake of cutting budget? Good idea or bad idea?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 02, 2017 8:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 3:10 pm
Posts: 30817
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified
Party: After 10
133743Hokie wrote:
RiverguyVT wrote:
133743Hokie wrote:
RiverguyVT wrote:
133743Hokie wrote:
RiverguyVT wrote:
[quote="133743Hokie"]
Disagree. Daily time commitment as SoS will be much more than CEO.

Yeah. I'm sorry, 13334893538. That's just stupid.
Any chance you're a beltway guy?
I'm laughing ...


No, I'm the retired chairman of the board of a mid sized company that spent 20 years working with the department of state and intelligence community on their domestic and overseas facilities. What's your base of knowledge?

The fact that you think being CEO of Exxon required more time than being SoS leads me to think you have no idea what either job is about.

I surely wouldn't confuse a mid sized company with Exxon.
A CEO position at a company like Exxon is essentially an apex job in the entire universe of jobs, and gained by MERIT, not political legerdemain.

Absolutely, the SoS does not put more time in than Exxon CEOship. I'd say both are incredibly time-consuming beyond what I would be accustomed to or want.

The private sector job is more accountable, for one thing, and subject to constant jeopardy and scrutiny. A CEO could lose his job any day, for any decision. Not so much in the bureaucratic universe.

You have no sense of the jobs or their responsibilities. To say that the time commitment and responsibilities of being Exxon CEO is greater than that of SoS is ludicrous. You think being the Exxon CEO is more accountable? Subjected to constant jeopardy and scrutiny at a higher level than the SoS? Please

Saying over &I over that I'm wrong...doesn't make you right.
Yes. One job is based on merit. The other, not so much so.
My simple assumption is that high-level merit based jobs take more time than high-level appointments by favor. Merit based jobs are subject to more accountability, by their very nature, than appointment-based government ones.

Are you really suggesting that Hillary! put more time & effort in to her role, specifically, the constitutional requirements of the post (and not all of that extra-curricular fundraising, malfeasance, Foundation, and highjinks) than did Tillerson at Exxon during those same years?? THAT'S what is laughable.

Yes. He was more accountable for his efforts and results than she was. Unquestionably.

Your "simple assumption" is just that, simple, and it's wrong. To intimate that the SoS job is just an appointment to pay back a favor does a gross disservice to the role and responsibility and to those that have served in that capacity. If this is how you see things no wonder you think being CEO of Exxon is a harder and more time consuming job.[/quote]You're loco on this one.

_________________
You losers lost, take off the vagina suit.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 02, 2017 8:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:58 pm
Posts: 19078
Location: Fake Dossier Writing Center
Party: Draintheswamp
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:

What is the consequence of not including an extra layer of bureaucracy here?


Not filling the top level diplomat positions means they are lacking leadership in key areas.


Still don't see a problem.


Yeh, we all know you don't see a problem. That doesn't mean it isn't.


That's not an argument.

HokieFanDC : "please, won't somebody think of the TPS reports?!"

I do like your idea for reducing our State Department to be closer to that of a nation whose budget for their equivalent is miniscule compared to ours.


LOL, your argument is that you don't see it as a problem, there is no rebuttal to your general opinion.

Yeh, it's a good idea. Done properly, it could be awesome. Done the way it's being done, ridiculous.

How would you feel if the Navy had multiple open commander and caption positions, for the pure sake of cutting budget? Good idea or bad idea?


1. Your argument is that there is a problem even though you can provide no evidence of one. Who's the person with an irrational argument again? I merely asked you to provide something remotely observable as a fallout from lack of policy so we could have a discussion. I was prepared to concede, but you can't name a single thing - not helping your argument.

2. Lol, welcome to the party. That's been going on for a long, long time. There are huge manning shortfalls ("gapped billets") across the DoD right now.

_________________
"Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants."
- Gen. Omar Bradley


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 02, 2017 9:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 10:12 am
Posts: 5120
Alma Mater: Virginia Tech
Party: Eclectic
So Tillerson isn't on the way out. Good to know.

_________________
"To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize." - Voltaire


"Christian socialism is but the holy water with which the priest consecrates the heart-burnings of the aristocrat" Karl Marx


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 03, 2017 2:55 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:57 pm
Posts: 8447
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:

Yeh, we all know you don't see a problem. That doesn't mean it isn't.


That's not an argument.

HokieFanDC : "please, won't somebody think of the TPS reports?!"

I do like your idea for reducing our State Department to be closer to that of a nation whose budget for their equivalent is miniscule compared to ours.


LOL, your argument is that you don't see it as a problem, there is no rebuttal to your general opinion.

Yeh, it's a good idea. Done properly, it could be awesome. Done the way it's being done, ridiculous.

How would you feel if the Navy had multiple open commander and caption positions, for the pure sake of cutting budget? Good idea or bad idea?


1. Your argument is that there is a problem even though you can provide no evidence of one. Who's the person with an irrational argument again? I merely asked you to provide something remotely observable as a fallout from lack of policy so we could have a discussion. I was prepared to concede, but you can't name a single thing - not helping your argument.

2. Lol, welcome to the party. That's been going on for a long, long time. There are huge manning shortfalls ("gapped billets") across the DoD right now.


Without leadership in key areas, who is supposed to push our foreign policy? Assuming we have an actual foreign policy, which may be debatable, it is the job of the diplomats to push those policies and work with other countries to push our priorities and agenda. Without those people in place, that doesn't happen.
The State department works to promote America's interests all over the world. Not filling those posts make that job a lot more difficult, in some cases impossible.

On your second point, how many of those gapped billets are commander/captain positions. Those are the positions that are not being filled, not rank and file positions.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 03, 2017 9:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:58 pm
Posts: 19078
Location: Fake Dossier Writing Center
Party: Draintheswamp
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:

That's not an argument.

HokieFanDC : "please, won't somebody think of the TPS reports?!"

I do like your idea for reducing our State Department to be closer to that of a nation whose budget for their equivalent is miniscule compared to ours.


LOL, your argument is that you don't see it as a problem, there is no rebuttal to your general opinion.

Yeh, it's a good idea. Done properly, it could be awesome. Done the way it's being done, ridiculous.

How would you feel if the Navy had multiple open commander and caption positions, for the pure sake of cutting budget? Good idea or bad idea?


1. Your argument is that there is a problem even though you can provide no evidence of one. Who's the person with an irrational argument again? I merely asked you to provide something remotely observable as a fallout from lack of policy so we could have a discussion. I was prepared to concede, but you can't name a single thing - not helping your argument.

2. Lol, welcome to the party. That's been going on for a long, long time. There are huge manning shortfalls ("gapped billets") across the DoD right now.


Without leadership in key areas, who is supposed to push our foreign policy? Assuming we have an actual foreign policy, which may be debatable, it is the job of the diplomats to push those policies and work with other countries to push our priorities and agenda. Without those people in place, that doesn't happen.
The State department works to promote America's interests all over the world. Not filling those posts make that job a lot more difficult, in some cases impossible.

On your second point, how many of those gapped billets are commander/captain positions. Those are the positions that are not being filled, not rank and file positions.


1. "Without leadership in key areas, who is supposed to push our foreign policy?"

WTF? C'mon, this is self-licking ice cream cone platitudes.

2. All the time.

You're trying to imply that there's some State Dept Office of Transgender Eskimo Underwear Gnome Research which is going to steer into the rocks without some political appointee hack at the helm. That's ludicrous.

_________________
"Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants."
- Gen. Omar Bradley


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 03, 2017 12:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:30 pm
Posts: 9541
70,000 employees
70 freakin thousand


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 03, 2017 12:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:57 pm
Posts: 8447
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:

LOL, your argument is that you don't see it as a problem, there is no rebuttal to your general opinion.

Yeh, it's a good idea. Done properly, it could be awesome. Done the way it's being done, ridiculous.

How would you feel if the Navy had multiple open commander and caption positions, for the pure sake of cutting budget? Good idea or bad idea?


1. Your argument is that there is a problem even though you can provide no evidence of one. Who's the person with an irrational argument again? I merely asked you to provide something remotely observable as a fallout from lack of policy so we could have a discussion. I was prepared to concede, but you can't name a single thing - not helping your argument.

2. Lol, welcome to the party. That's been going on for a long, long time. There are huge manning shortfalls ("gapped billets") across the DoD right now.


Without leadership in key areas, who is supposed to push our foreign policy? Assuming we have an actual foreign policy, which may be debatable, it is the job of the diplomats to push those policies and work with other countries to push our priorities and agenda. Without those people in place, that doesn't happen.
The State department works to promote America's interests all over the world. Not filling those posts make that job a lot more difficult, in some cases impossible.

On your second point, how many of those gapped billets are commander/captain positions. Those are the positions that are not being filled, not rank and file positions.


1. "Without leadership in key areas, who is supposed to push our foreign policy?"

WTF? C'mon, this is self-licking ice cream cone platitudes.

2. All the time.

You're trying to imply that there's some State Dept Office of Transgender Eskimo Underwear Gnome Research which is going to steer into the rocks without some political appointee hack at the helm. That's ludicrous.



You didn't answer either of my questions, and you made up a really terrific strawman. Good work.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 03, 2017 12:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:57 pm
Posts: 8447
RiverguyVT wrote:
70,000 employees
70 freakin thousand


Yeh, we know.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 03, 2017 12:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:58 pm
Posts: 19078
Location: Fake Dossier Writing Center
Party: Draintheswamp
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:

1. Your argument is that there is a problem even though you can provide no evidence of one. Who's the person with an irrational argument again? I merely asked you to provide something remotely observable as a fallout from lack of policy so we could have a discussion. I was prepared to concede, but you can't name a single thing - not helping your argument.

2. Lol, welcome to the party. That's been going on for a long, long time. There are huge manning shortfalls ("gapped billets") across the DoD right now.


Without leadership in key areas, who is supposed to push our foreign policy? Assuming we have an actual foreign policy, which may be debatable, it is the job of the diplomats to push those policies and work with other countries to push our priorities and agenda. Without those people in place, that doesn't happen.
The State department works to promote America's interests all over the world. Not filling those posts make that job a lot more difficult, in some cases impossible.

On your second point, how many of those gapped billets are commander/captain positions. Those are the positions that are not being filled, not rank and file positions.


1. "Without leadership in key areas, who is supposed to push our foreign policy?"

WTF? C'mon, this is self-licking ice cream cone platitudes.

2. All the time.

You're trying to imply that there's some State Dept Office of Transgender Eskimo Underwear Gnome Research which is going to steer into the rocks without some political appointee hack at the helm. That's ludicrous.



You didn't answer either of my questions, and you made up a really terrific strawman. Good work.


Your first question was rhetorical bullshirt. My entire premise is that we're not missing leadership in key areas, or that your/their definition of key areas (note that you still haven't defined or given me an example) is silly.

I did give you an answer - "all the time."

_________________
"Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants."
- Gen. Omar Bradley


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 108 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Time zone: America/New_York


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group Color scheme by ColorizeIt!