miamizsun wrote: 
Don't tell them next time the Wienermobile comes to town then be all well if were paying attention to your work you wouldn't have missed it, ass-face!
 

 miamizsun wrote: 
take away the internets.

btw, are you on the clock, boss?

lol

 miamizsun wrote: 

 islander wrote: 
as employers how do we handle coporate time stealing weasels?

 Romulus wrote: 
Nor was mine, just pointing out how blanket statements can cover more than intended.

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 
Nope, never. Now where are the hookers?

 islander wrote: 
That was not a personal attack on yourself, just an additional point to what steeler was saying, using a not so facile analogy.

The Obama campaign has confirmed, (as did some of the protesters) that Democrats are paying people to heckle Mitt Romney at campaign events.s

This is why I hate politics with a passion.

 islander wrote: 
Well played sir.

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 
Well I clearly wasn't referring to him. It's just an unfortunate trait of that particular crowd - one bad apple 'n all. 

 islander wrote: 
Romulus rarely writes in green tho.

 Romulus wrote: 
Not really sure why you threw this out there, but I could also say: Some forum posters here who have screen names that start with 'r' are arrogant, sex obsessed, freaks who know no bounds of common decency.

Just sayin.

 

 steeler wrote:
Fair enough.  I was also trying to point out that these people are all elected. Shareholders vote, and even if they are drowned out by the institutionals, the institutionals are represented by their shareholders or pensioners or whatever. At some point it gets back to individuals being greedy and thinking it's okay to screw everyone else as long as they get theirs. Then we get all surprised/indignant/alienated fro the process when we elect greedy people and they screw us instead of putting us on the crony list.  If we aren't morally true in our selection process, then we shouldn't be surprised when the resulting system is corrupt.


steeler wrote:  
Yeah, I've seen that. It makes me laugh.  I'm good at what I do, I make good money, but I'm hardly irreplaceable. If I'm gone tomorrow, there will be a dozen people lining up for the slot. They may have somewhat different approaches, and they may not all succeed, but there is nothing that I do that is cast in unobtainium.   I deserve the money I get because of my results, not because of some secret sauce that only I know how to craft. 

 miamizsun wrote: 

I think one of the reasons unions were formed was because of the power the employer had over the employees.  Of course, an employee is free to leave that employment as we do not have slaves or indentured servants anymore.

I would not necessarily equate political influence with corruption. There are all kinds of organizations that lobby for legislation.  Nonprofits do it all the time. The advocacy of factions was part of the Framers' vision. Not all lobbyists are corrupt or possessed of ill intentions. And neither are all organizations that employ them.

Your comment about legislation forcing the taxpayer to pay for the law/contract being a form of corruption is curious.  These are elected officials, and everyone has the right to vote.  They can voluntarily exercise that right, or voluntariliy not exercise it.  They can also voluntarily choose to live somewhere other than in the jurisdiction in which they currently reside (local, state, or federal).  The whole notion that a taxpayer should not have to pay for a law with which they disagree turns the whole concept of representative government on its head.
  
 

 islander wrote: 
I would. Most famous artists that I've run into or just successful working artists have that, and a lot of artists who can't make a go of it are actually better.
 
Nickelback springs to mind. 

 islander wrote: 
My old boss, thought he was a pretty swell guy too, even though he was an arrogant, sexist, alcoholic jerk.

Just sayin.

 islander wrote: 

Let me explain a bit.  I do not disagree with what you have posted, and it was not my intention to paint with a broad brush.  Certainly not everyone in a position of power, be it an elected official or a CEO or whathaveyou, is there only because they relish the power.  Rather, there are a myriad of considerations, as you point out in your case.

My focus, though, was on the impulse of some to aspire to leadership positions, and/or positions of power.  Again, not necessarily a flaw. One person's aggression and arrogance is another person's drive and confidence.

I do know that folk who have served in CEO-type positions when asked about the high salaries often are quoted as saying that there are not many among the populace who could do their jobs. Again, not  necessarily anything wrong with holding that view, but it is a view that the person in question is part of a select segment of the population. 
    
This does not mean that persons holding positions of power are corrupt or even totally self-serving.   

 steeler wrote: 
.
 < backscrolls >

 steeler wrote:  

I am a leader in my business and industry. I don't have the CEO tag, but I'm the operational head and the guy I report to on the org chart isn't involved in day to day. Realistically, I really report to the board of directors so it's a lot of semantics. I think there are a lot of people like me who run things because we enjoy the challenge. We like seeing the results, and we like the trappings that come with success if you do it well enough.  While we may have an above average level of confidence/arrogance/hubris in general, I think that extreme is a little harsh. Sure there are examples, but there are thousands of people who are the top guy in their business that you never hear about.  

You could also say that there is an above average level of confidence/arrogance/hubris in artists, but I doubt you would say that is something to be overly cognizant of.

That said,  do think that politics and the super high levels of business (CEOs of G.E., Microsoft, Ford, ect.) do attract a certain breed of individual. But for every state senator, there are dozens of mayors, city council members, Police chiefs, Fire marshals, and many other public officials who really do want to do a good job. And in the end, isn't it our fault for rewarding those who seem to be self serving and open to corruption regardless of method?  Does it make any difference if we vote for the least worst candidate for office, or if we hold Phillip Morris in our retirement portfolio?  The choices we make as individuals influence our society as a whole. If we consistently make self serving choices without regard to a greater good, should we really be surprised if our society becomes corrupt and only serves a few?

Reap what you sow and all.

I'll continue to do my job for my own reasons. I let my moral compass guide my decisions. I'll live with the results. 

 steeler wrote:
well there's people who have made/built companies through good solid/legit business

what power would they have over any other person?

what power do they have to compel anyone to do anything?

isn't the interaction voluntary?

and there are those who have used political influence/corruption to fleece the taxpayer (either by forcing the taxpayer to pay by law/contract or some unfair rule to discriminate against competition, etc.)

even though the system is corrupt you have to an easy way to tell

if they have employed lobbyists, look at the results/legislation

regards

 ScottN wrote:

We create and/or feed the bolded portion.

Made me think of nomination of Douglas Ginsburg to the Supreme Court. Had to be withdrawn because or revelation of his marijuana use.  I remember a law professor of mine coming into class and asking: "So, how many here could withstand a nomination to the Supreme Court?"