Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Heh, I'm not running for president there smart guy.Hmmm You manage 11 people and McCain's had a career in the armed forces and the senate. Wow this is a tough one. who would I trust? 11 people. Wow. That must keep you up at night. I think I'll put my trust in the guy who's running for president of the US instead of the guy on the message board. By the way, try reading "Lincoln on Leadership" some time.
Exactly! You have no idea what you are talking about.
I manage a team of 11 people who do a job I can't do. It happens all the time. You think a CEO can perform every function within his organization? Of course not. Leaders hold employees accountable for doing the job they are expected to do, and communicate their goals, and remove obstacles from them getting their job done. That is what leaders do.
Have you ever worked in a leadership role? It sure doesn't sound like it...
You still have something in common being the goal that I am sure even you would admit helps. I guess you would be in trouble without your team huh?
I think I mentioned I was a sargent (means your in a leadership role) in case you missed it and owned a business or two for 10 years. All irrelevant to what makes a good leader. Its not just about being in charge or barking orders is it? I have no need to lead anyone and don't exalt myself. Your constant put downs makes it sounds like you do and really don't care about people.
I follow Jesus willingly because He inspires me with His leadership. The mark of a true leader. You tell Jesus you want to vote for someone who will advocate for abortion and leave the nation defenseless if you want, thats on you.
You've made my point.Heh, I'm not running for president there smart guy.
Your point was that I'm not running for president? Try to follow along better here. I addressed an argument went like this "those who lead have to be able to do the work of the operative employees". It is proven throughout history that is total baloney, and I pointed out my own experience to show it as well. What is your beef anyway?You've made my point.
What specifically is so bad about his record, Issi? Explain in simple terms that even a civilian can understand.
There's not one answer as it depends on what level of policy you are speaking, and what the specific policies are.
I told you it was a hard questions.
The Civilian Government sets policy.
Not the Military.
Not on any level.
Policy is guidance that is directive or instructive, stating what is
to be accomplished. It reflects a conscious choice to pursue certain
avenues and not others. Thus, while doctrine is held to be relatively
enduring, policy is more mutable. Policies may change due to changes in
national leadership, political considerations, or for fiscal reasons. At the
national level, policy may be expressed in such broad vehicles as the
National Security Strategy (NSS) or Presidential Executive Orders. Within
military operations, policy may be expressed not only in terms of objectives,
but also in rules of engagement (ROE)—what we may or may not
strike, or under what circumstances we may strike particular targets.
Not 100% complete, Charlie. Let's take Air Force Basic Doctrine, for example: http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/service_pubs/afdd1.pdf. It is published by order of the Secretary of the Air Force and provides the overarching doctrine under which the Air Force Operates. It states:
The ROE, for instance, are determined by the competent military authority. In the case of the Iraq ROE, SECDEF and CENTCOM Commander have authority of the broad ROE; however, the command at each succesive level has the authority to create their own ROE, further restricting or specifying policy according to the needs of their Area of Responsibility. Thus my answer that, "there's not one answer as it depends on what level of policy you are speaking, and what the specific policies are," is correct.
Issi, the ability for the military to create day to day policies for itself was delegated by the civilian government. Ultimately it is the civilian government who holds the power over the military who is as I stated earlier in the thread, a means to an end.
I think Charlie was referring to the when and how the military is used, not the way it get's it's job done. When the civilian government gives the military its mission, it has policies/protocols (which might be better called procedures) that cover 'how it gets it done', but they don't determine 'if' it gets it done, or 'when' it will be used, etc ...No kidding, which is why I said, Charlie's answer was not complete and "there's not one answer as it depends on what level of policy you are speaking, and what the specific policies are..." The answer to Charlie's question is not, "The Civilian Government sets policy. Not the Military. Not on any level." Under the authority granted by the United States government, the military does set policy for itself, depending on what the policy is.
Ron Paul - yes. I wish more would vote that way...
That's where i would like to go. Except the vote would be like .001%.
And therefore we would be stuck with the leftovers.
I hate leftovers.
But seeing we have evil vs evil...
One who isnt equipped to lie to make us feel better...and so seems kinda doh. [McCain]
And one is as smooth as silk when he talks out of the side of his mouth. [Obama]
Nice choices.
I read enough about Obama's Method of Operation to know he is slick. He told ppl bold faced he would have voted on the born alive act if the wording was different. Bold faced lied...
Since the wording was HIS to begin with.
If people would simply not vote if the don't get the candidate they want we should see alot better presidents running our country. The election campaigns "live" off the people who "settle" pretty much.
Not quite. I don't think not voting at all changes anything - but voting for a 3rd party candidate who you agree with does. When a 3rd party gets say, 2% of the popular vote, that's an awful lot of votes, and the big two will do what they can to get those votes next time around. It's always seems to me that, with regards to abortion, the best thing we could do as pro-lifers would be to unite and vote for one truly pro-life from conception to natural death (not just anti Roe-V Wade decision) candidate, even if he has no chance of winning. 4 years later, one of the big parties would likely nominate a truly pro-life, candidate.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?