i guess, having thought about it. though my problem with Obama is not the wimpiness, per se. or rather, i don't want someone to be aggressive as much as successful. maybe in the end it's the same thing, though.
Romney = wrong kind of Supreme Court Justices on the bench for next 40 years.
also, his swings from right to left and back again may too be symptoms of wimpiness rather than moronity (yes, i just made those words up).
in a way, the two are not that dissimilar. in a way, it doesn't really much matter.
// in a way, the two are not that dissimilar. in a way, it doesn't really much matter.//
You hit the bull-eye here - the actual policies would be very similar no matter who is elected as those policies will be determined by political realities and by necessities of the unfolding events. The differences that the candidates are pitching to us now are mostly just pre-election sloganeering.
We already know that Obama will not destroy the country in 4 years. As for Romney, it is a real possibility. Besides, voting for a fascist would make you feel dirty for the rest of your life.
I was curious to see if there are actual real people who can't decide between two complete opposites, and here u are. Not aggressive and not macho doesn't mean a wimp, a wimp is in the eye of the beholder.
I agree about not macho, who cares about that? But not aggressive - hmmm, methinks a leader should be aggressive in pursuing an agenda he professes.
And as I said above, I do not believe these two are complete opposites - they are different in their rhethoric when they appeal to their respective voter bases, but their actual policies would be quite similar.
P.S. Have not seen you for a while, glad too see you are still alive and kicking..:-)
yes, i have decided to come back to LJ for some kicking:-) no one, including leaders, should be aggressive, that can only create more conflicts. u don't solve anything this way and don't achieve anything except more wars and more conflicts and misunderstandings and stuff. u get so-so much more if u are smart, flexible and likable.
Any change (even as small as rearranging desks in an office) creates some conflicts along the way. It is how leadership deals with those conflicts that makes the difference. And I do not see "smart/flexible/likable" and "aggressive" as being mutually exclusive.
In my book, being aggressive means being persistent and committed in pursuing your goal, and not being deterred by obstacles and resistance.
Being likable is a great tool, however, you cannot put a premium on being always likable in pursuit of your goals, as some of your opponents could not be disarmed by charming and you will need to use other tools in your toolbox to clear your path to the goal. Co-opting the opposition is another great tool, but oftentimes it means compromising your goal as co-opting is a double-edged process. So if you cannot charm away, bypass, or co-opt the opposition, you have to get out a tool of being a nasty a**hole.
Being "nice" is great, but people should be aware that you have other options.
I am not prejudiced against mormons, or any other group. Although in the present situation, I would have a hard time voting for a Muslim candidate for the President, I have to admit...
Comments 66
I do have the right, don't I?
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Romney = wrong kind of Supreme Court Justices on the bench for next 40 years.
also, his swings from right to left and back again may too be symptoms of wimpiness rather than moronity (yes, i just made those words up).
in a way, the two are not that dissimilar. in a way, it doesn't really much matter.
Reply
You hit the bull-eye here - the actual policies would be very similar no matter who is elected as those policies will be determined by political realities and by necessities of the unfolding events. The differences that the candidates are pitching to us now are mostly just pre-election sloganeering.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Not aggressive and not macho doesn't mean a wimp, a wimp is in the eye of the beholder.
Reply
And as I said above, I do not believe these two are complete opposites - they are different in their rhethoric when they appeal to their respective voter bases, but their actual policies would be quite similar.
P.S. Have not seen you for a while, glad too see you are still alive and kicking..:-)
Reply
no one, including leaders, should be aggressive, that can only create more conflicts. u don't solve anything this way and don't achieve anything except more wars and more conflicts and misunderstandings and stuff. u get so-so much more if u are smart, flexible and likable.
Reply
In my book, being aggressive means being persistent and committed in pursuing your goal, and not being deterred by obstacles and resistance.
Being likable is a great tool, however, you cannot put a premium on being always likable in pursuit of your goals, as some of your opponents could not be disarmed by charming and you will need to use other tools in your toolbox to clear your path to the goal. Co-opting the opposition is another great tool, but oftentimes it means compromising your goal as co-opting is a double-edged process. So if you cannot charm away, bypass, or co-opt the opposition, you have to get out a tool of being a nasty a**hole.
Being "nice" is great, but people should be aware that you have other options.
Reply
Reply
Reply
circumstances.
Reply
Leave a comment