Why are lots of CEO, CFO's leaving

• Why are lots of CEO, CFO's leaving - companies? Taking their money and run?
  • The Spheris CEO quit yesterday, too. - no message

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

hounded ME off.  It has nothing to do with my convictions.  It has everything to do with my extreme DISTASTE for someone like YOU who does nothing but ATTACK, ATTACK, ATTACK, who treats her fellow human beings like S**T, who lies every chance she gets and justifies everything she does by saying her Lord Jesus Christ forgives you.  You believe that Jesus, in your skewed mind, has given you the green light to do as many UN-Jesuslike things as you care to do, to be as mean and nasty and hateful as you can possibly be to other people, and all is forgiven, in your twisted mind.

Why on EARTH would I want to stay here and subject myself to the likes of YOU?  I can read what INTELLIGENT Conservatives have to say on another site, and I don't have to get POUNDED INTO THE GROUND BY any of them in order to do it.

You -- especially YOU -- are the worst ever on this entire board.  All you EVER do is project hatred, and then you go on to talk about Jesus.  Why don't you try to be more LIKE Jesus?  Jesus wouldn't ever treat people with such hatred and malice as you do.

As far as your friends leaving, I don't believe that for one nanosecond.  They're still here.  They just invented themselves with new monikers, but the same hatred and rage is there, and so are they.

Goodbye, MT.  I'll miss you.  I had a dental abscess last year.  I miss that, too.

And didn't you say you were going to Iraq, as well?  I think you'd be an incredible asset to Bush in Iraq.  If you were there, we could win the war immediately.  All you have to do is spread your word to the enemy.  After five minutes of listening to your skewed logic, they'd turn the weapons on themselves.  Masters of surprise terror attacks that they are, this would be a wonderful surprise tactic to use on them.

It doesn't work here any more, though.  The only thing that would surprise some of us is if you actually told the truth about something.

Especially Reagan, but nothing new. 

The Chickenhawk argument goes something like this: anyone who favors military action should not be taken seriously unless they themselves are willing to go and do the actual fighting. This particular piece of work is an anti-war crowd attempt to silence the debate by ruling that the other side is out of bounds for the duration. Like all ad hominem attacks, (argumentum ad hominem means “argument against the person”) it is an act of intellectual surrender. The person who employs an ad hominem attack is admitting they cannot win the debate on merit, and hope to chuck the entire thing out the window by attacking the messenger. This is a logical fallacy of the first order, because the messenger is not the message.

The messenger is not the message. That’s all you need to throw away the entire Chickenhawk response. But why stop there when this one is so much fun?

If you are ever see this charge again, you may want to reflect that person’s own logical reasoning in the following fashion: You may not talk about education unless you are willing to become a teacher. You may not discuss poverty unless you yourself are willing to go and form a homeless shelter. How dare you criticize Congress unless you are willing to go out and get elected yourself? Your opinion on a National Health Care System is negated out of hand since you are unwilling to get a medical degree and open a clinic. And as far as your opinions regarding the Democratic Underground or The Huffington Post are concerned, well, you can just keep them to yourself, mister, unless you can produce an advanced degree in Abnormal Psychology and Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

Using the internal reasoning behind the Chickenhawk argument means you cannot comment on, speak about or even hold an opinion on any subject that is not part of your paying day job. It is simple-minded and profoundly anti-democratic, which is why it so deeply appeals to those who sling it around the most.

But wait! There’s more!

If you accept the Chickenhawk argument – that only those actually willing to go and fight have a legitimate opinion on the subject of war – then that means that any decision to go to war must rest exclusively in the hands of the military. Is that what this person really wants? To abandon civilian control of the military? That’s the box they have trapped themselves in with this argument. Now to be perfectly honest, I think Robert Heinlein made a very compelling case for just this line of reasoning in Starship Troopers (the book, not the clueless projected travesty). Heinlein said that the only people who should be allowed to vote are those that have served in the military, since only they are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice on behalf of the state. I don’t agree with that. I think civilian control of the military has been one of the pillars of our nation’s success, and it has withstood the test of both World Wars and Civil ones. But that is the world you are stuck in when you toss that little Chickenhawk grenade.

Finally, if the only legitimate opinion on Iraq, say, is that held by the troops themselves, then they are overwhelmingly in favor of being there and finishing what they started. I recently received an e-mail from an Army major who is heading back for his fourth tour. The Chickenhawk argument, coming from an anti-war commentator, legitimizes only those voices that overwhelmingly contradict the anti-war argument.

Bill Whittle wrote that. He's a real live veteran and I happen to agree with him.

offshore drilling rigs.  huh huh huh.

My son-in-law emailed me this, and this is what I sent him in response:

Thanks, Mr. Bush. 

Store clerks state it is because of Obama.  Some stores keep running out of ammunition to purchase.  Then I found this link on CNN.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/11/11/obama.gun.sales/index.html

What is funny, I live in a very Democratic, Liberal state.

Especially the inevitability of New Orleans. You can research the local papers and find articles that go back years. The funding to research and fix this has been the last 3 years W. has been in office. That is a fact. The Army Corps of Engineers chief quit in disgust over this issue some time ago and the former FEMA chairman was fired; the one who got things done, by the Bush administration..I don't know why.  Our leadership is lacking. We need a leader. We need someone to step up to the plate and start the ball rolling; to date, doctors, nurses, entertainers, basketball players and ordinary everyday people with some necessary skills have been on the ground working in a haphazard manner because there is no leadership. Bush 41 and Clinton have started their tsunami crusade a la New Orleans and I have to tell you, the both of them sitting on my TV screen asking for money, were more believable, more compassionate than anything we have seen from the WH. A lot of defensive people up there. Why doesn't someone lead. As the mayor of New Orleans said, Washington sent one John Wayne guy down there and he is evidently kicking butt, getting things done. Where are the leaders???

I, too, find the Viggo mortensen tie-in a little strange. I had to reread the entire thread and I only saw Hollywood, no one specific named, was there? Other than Willie and he isn't Hollywood.  Anyhow, I don't like Dennis either.  I can remember when he was all over the news going to do something about the gasoline prices and never heard another word out of him after he was elected.  He's no different than most of them and no better than any of othem.