Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
Aecetia
ParticipantI think he takes after you! Now back to Palin:
“Sometimes, the best leader knows when to quit. Being a quitter runs counter to manliness, unless the man is caught with his pants down. Even then, some men will stay put, regardless of how distracting his absence of pants becomes, how much his staying costs in dollars and intangibles, how little is accomplished while he stands his ground.”
“Of course, in addition to accusing Palin of having a behind-the-scenes strategy that will bring her political career back or having some secrets that she wants to keep secret, some are saying her resignation shows she’s weak under pressure. I don’t buy that. Most women I know are tougher than most men I know. Quitting takes courage. Staying is often a sign of nothing more than stupidity.”
“Think of all the executives who’ve led companies and organizations during the past couple of years. Most have been men and have done a dreadful job. If they had guts, perhaps honor, they would’ve quit.”
Palin: Are Women Better Leaders?
July 13, 2009 at 9:46 am by: John PhillipsParticipantI think he takes after you! Now back to Palin:
“Sometimes, the best leader knows when to quit. Being a quitter runs counter to manliness, unless the man is caught with his pants down. Even then, some men will stay put, regardless of how distracting his absence of pants becomes, how much his staying costs in dollars and intangibles, how little is accomplished while he stands his ground.”
“Of course, in addition to accusing Palin of having a behind-the-scenes strategy that will bring her political career back or having some secrets that she wants to keep secret, some are saying her resignation shows she’s weak under pressure. I don’t buy that. Most women I know are tougher than most men I know. Quitting takes courage. Staying is often a sign of nothing more than stupidity.”
“Think of all the executives who’ve led companies and organizations during the past couple of years. Most have been men and have done a dreadful job. If they had guts, perhaps honor, they would’ve quit.”
Palin: Are Women Better Leaders?
July 13, 2009 at 9:46 am by: John PhillipsParticipantI think he takes after you! Now back to Palin:
“Sometimes, the best leader knows when to quit. Being a quitter runs counter to manliness, unless the man is caught with his pants down. Even then, some men will stay put, regardless of how distracting his absence of pants becomes, how much his staying costs in dollars and intangibles, how little is accomplished while he stands his ground.”
“Of course, in addition to accusing Palin of having a behind-the-scenes strategy that will bring her political career back or having some secrets that she wants to keep secret, some are saying her resignation shows she’s weak under pressure. I don’t buy that. Most women I know are tougher than most men I know. Quitting takes courage. Staying is often a sign of nothing more than stupidity.”
“Think of all the executives who’ve led companies and organizations during the past couple of years. Most have been men and have done a dreadful job. If they had guts, perhaps honor, they would’ve quit.”
Palin: Are Women Better Leaders?
July 13, 2009 at 9:46 am by: John PhillipsParticipantI think he takes after you! Now back to Palin:
“Sometimes, the best leader knows when to quit. Being a quitter runs counter to manliness, unless the man is caught with his pants down. Even then, some men will stay put, regardless of how distracting his absence of pants becomes, how much his staying costs in dollars and intangibles, how little is accomplished while he stands his ground.”
“Of course, in addition to accusing Palin of having a behind-the-scenes strategy that will bring her political career back or having some secrets that she wants to keep secret, some are saying her resignation shows she’s weak under pressure. I don’t buy that. Most women I know are tougher than most men I know. Quitting takes courage. Staying is often a sign of nothing more than stupidity.”
“Think of all the executives who’ve led companies and organizations during the past couple of years. Most have been men and have done a dreadful job. If they had guts, perhaps honor, they would’ve quit.”
Palin: Are Women Better Leaders?
July 13, 2009 at 9:46 am by: John PhillipsParticipantI think he takes after you! Now back to Palin:
“Sometimes, the best leader knows when to quit. Being a quitter runs counter to manliness, unless the man is caught with his pants down. Even then, some men will stay put, regardless of how distracting his absence of pants becomes, how much his staying costs in dollars and intangibles, how little is accomplished while he stands his ground.”
“Of course, in addition to accusing Palin of having a behind-the-scenes strategy that will bring her political career back or having some secrets that she wants to keep secret, some are saying her resignation shows she’s weak under pressure. I don’t buy that. Most women I know are tougher than most men I know. Quitting takes courage. Staying is often a sign of nothing more than stupidity.”
“Think of all the executives who’ve led companies and organizations during the past couple of years. Most have been men and have done a dreadful job. If they had guts, perhaps honor, they would’ve quit.”
Palin: Are Women Better Leaders?
July 13, 2009 at 9:46 am by: John PhillipsParticipant“Ever since Robert Bork, nominated to the Supreme Court by Ronald Reagan, answered questions directly and spoke honestly about his approach to the U.S. Constitution, causing him to be rejected, every nominee to the Supreme Court has said nothing as impressively as possible. It’s likely Sonia Sotomayor will follow suit. She’s even been practicing. She’s well aware that no nominee since Bork has been rejected after confirmation hearings – because he or she has said nothing so well.”
“There was a time when Supreme Court nominees didn’t even appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee to answer questions in advance of a full vote by the Senate. No one really knew what the nominee would do if confirmed.”
“In a way, we’ve come full circle. The nominee appears before the Senate Judiciary Committee. A lot of speeches are made and questions asked. Once that’s done, no one really knows what the nominee will do if confirmed.”
“Today, the dance between Sotomayor and the Senate begins. It’ll be an interesting process. Sotomayor will say nothing in an artful way. She’ll become another post-Bork nominee to be confirmed.”
“It’s perhaps not the best example of democracy at work or the best way to pick a liftime jurist who arguably will have more power and influence on our nation for decades than just about any other government official. But it’s the way our republic works now when a Supreme Court nominee is chosen.”
http://employmentlawpost.com/theword/2009/07/13/sotomayor-saying-nothing-impressively/
I find it troubling that her score on the LSAT was lower than the admission standard. She considers herself a product of affirmative action:
“In video clips dating back 25 years, and now provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sotomayor, according to the Times, even calls herself an ‘affirmative action product.’ The clips include lengthy remarks about her experiences as an ‘affirmative action baby,’ whose lower test scores were overlooked by admissions committees at Princeton University and Yale Law School because, she said, she is Hispanic and had grown up in poor circumstance.”
I do not like the double standard, either the one that the women of the 1950’s had to endure or the one the men in the 2000’s are now undergoing. Both are equally ignoble.
Participant“Ever since Robert Bork, nominated to the Supreme Court by Ronald Reagan, answered questions directly and spoke honestly about his approach to the U.S. Constitution, causing him to be rejected, every nominee to the Supreme Court has said nothing as impressively as possible. It’s likely Sonia Sotomayor will follow suit. She’s even been practicing. She’s well aware that no nominee since Bork has been rejected after confirmation hearings – because he or she has said nothing so well.”
“There was a time when Supreme Court nominees didn’t even appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee to answer questions in advance of a full vote by the Senate. No one really knew what the nominee would do if confirmed.”
“In a way, we’ve come full circle. The nominee appears before the Senate Judiciary Committee. A lot of speeches are made and questions asked. Once that’s done, no one really knows what the nominee will do if confirmed.”
“Today, the dance between Sotomayor and the Senate begins. It’ll be an interesting process. Sotomayor will say nothing in an artful way. She’ll become another post-Bork nominee to be confirmed.”
“It’s perhaps not the best example of democracy at work or the best way to pick a liftime jurist who arguably will have more power and influence on our nation for decades than just about any other government official. But it’s the way our republic works now when a Supreme Court nominee is chosen.”
http://employmentlawpost.com/theword/2009/07/13/sotomayor-saying-nothing-impressively/
I find it troubling that her score on the LSAT was lower than the admission standard. She considers herself a product of affirmative action:
“In video clips dating back 25 years, and now provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sotomayor, according to the Times, even calls herself an ‘affirmative action product.’ The clips include lengthy remarks about her experiences as an ‘affirmative action baby,’ whose lower test scores were overlooked by admissions committees at Princeton University and Yale Law School because, she said, she is Hispanic and had grown up in poor circumstance.”
I do not like the double standard, either the one that the women of the 1950’s had to endure or the one the men in the 2000’s are now undergoing. Both are equally ignoble.
Participant“Ever since Robert Bork, nominated to the Supreme Court by Ronald Reagan, answered questions directly and spoke honestly about his approach to the U.S. Constitution, causing him to be rejected, every nominee to the Supreme Court has said nothing as impressively as possible. It’s likely Sonia Sotomayor will follow suit. She’s even been practicing. She’s well aware that no nominee since Bork has been rejected after confirmation hearings – because he or she has said nothing so well.”
“There was a time when Supreme Court nominees didn’t even appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee to answer questions in advance of a full vote by the Senate. No one really knew what the nominee would do if confirmed.”
“In a way, we’ve come full circle. The nominee appears before the Senate Judiciary Committee. A lot of speeches are made and questions asked. Once that’s done, no one really knows what the nominee will do if confirmed.”
“Today, the dance between Sotomayor and the Senate begins. It’ll be an interesting process. Sotomayor will say nothing in an artful way. She’ll become another post-Bork nominee to be confirmed.”
“It’s perhaps not the best example of democracy at work or the best way to pick a liftime jurist who arguably will have more power and influence on our nation for decades than just about any other government official. But it’s the way our republic works now when a Supreme Court nominee is chosen.”
http://employmentlawpost.com/theword/2009/07/13/sotomayor-saying-nothing-impressively/
I find it troubling that her score on the LSAT was lower than the admission standard. She considers herself a product of affirmative action:
“In video clips dating back 25 years, and now provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sotomayor, according to the Times, even calls herself an ‘affirmative action product.’ The clips include lengthy remarks about her experiences as an ‘affirmative action baby,’ whose lower test scores were overlooked by admissions committees at Princeton University and Yale Law School because, she said, she is Hispanic and had grown up in poor circumstance.”
I do not like the double standard, either the one that the women of the 1950’s had to endure or the one the men in the 2000’s are now undergoing. Both are equally ignoble.
Participant“Ever since Robert Bork, nominated to the Supreme Court by Ronald Reagan, answered questions directly and spoke honestly about his approach to the U.S. Constitution, causing him to be rejected, every nominee to the Supreme Court has said nothing as impressively as possible. It’s likely Sonia Sotomayor will follow suit. She’s even been practicing. She’s well aware that no nominee since Bork has been rejected after confirmation hearings – because he or she has said nothing so well.”
“There was a time when Supreme Court nominees didn’t even appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee to answer questions in advance of a full vote by the Senate. No one really knew what the nominee would do if confirmed.”
“In a way, we’ve come full circle. The nominee appears before the Senate Judiciary Committee. A lot of speeches are made and questions asked. Once that’s done, no one really knows what the nominee will do if confirmed.”
“Today, the dance between Sotomayor and the Senate begins. It’ll be an interesting process. Sotomayor will say nothing in an artful way. She’ll become another post-Bork nominee to be confirmed.”
“It’s perhaps not the best example of democracy at work or the best way to pick a liftime jurist who arguably will have more power and influence on our nation for decades than just about any other government official. But it’s the way our republic works now when a Supreme Court nominee is chosen.”
http://employmentlawpost.com/theword/2009/07/13/sotomayor-saying-nothing-impressively/
I find it troubling that her score on the LSAT was lower than the admission standard. She considers herself a product of affirmative action:
“In video clips dating back 25 years, and now provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sotomayor, according to the Times, even calls herself an ‘affirmative action product.’ The clips include lengthy remarks about her experiences as an ‘affirmative action baby,’ whose lower test scores were overlooked by admissions committees at Princeton University and Yale Law School because, she said, she is Hispanic and had grown up in poor circumstance.”
I do not like the double standard, either the one that the women of the 1950’s had to endure or the one the men in the 2000’s are now undergoing. Both are equally ignoble.
Participant“Ever since Robert Bork, nominated to the Supreme Court by Ronald Reagan, answered questions directly and spoke honestly about his approach to the U.S. Constitution, causing him to be rejected, every nominee to the Supreme Court has said nothing as impressively as possible. It’s likely Sonia Sotomayor will follow suit. She’s even been practicing. She’s well aware that no nominee since Bork has been rejected after confirmation hearings – because he or she has said nothing so well.”
“There was a time when Supreme Court nominees didn’t even appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee to answer questions in advance of a full vote by the Senate. No one really knew what the nominee would do if confirmed.”
“In a way, we’ve come full circle. The nominee appears before the Senate Judiciary Committee. A lot of speeches are made and questions asked. Once that’s done, no one really knows what the nominee will do if confirmed.”
“Today, the dance between Sotomayor and the Senate begins. It’ll be an interesting process. Sotomayor will say nothing in an artful way. She’ll become another post-Bork nominee to be confirmed.”
“It’s perhaps not the best example of democracy at work or the best way to pick a liftime jurist who arguably will have more power and influence on our nation for decades than just about any other government official. But it’s the way our republic works now when a Supreme Court nominee is chosen.”
http://employmentlawpost.com/theword/2009/07/13/sotomayor-saying-nothing-impressively/
I find it troubling that her score on the LSAT was lower than the admission standard. She considers herself a product of affirmative action:
“In video clips dating back 25 years, and now provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sotomayor, according to the Times, even calls herself an ‘affirmative action product.’ The clips include lengthy remarks about her experiences as an ‘affirmative action baby,’ whose lower test scores were overlooked by admissions committees at Princeton University and Yale Law School because, she said, she is Hispanic and had grown up in poor circumstance.”
I do not like the double standard, either the one that the women of the 1950’s had to endure or the one the men in the 2000’s are now undergoing. Both are equally ignoble.
ParticipantIts remarks like that Allan that will cause TG to stop looking at his own visage in the mirror and migrate over to this topic.
ParticipantIts remarks like that Allan that will cause TG to stop looking at his own visage in the mirror and migrate over to this topic.
ParticipantIts remarks like that Allan that will cause TG to stop looking at his own visage in the mirror and migrate over to this topic.
ParticipantIts remarks like that Allan that will cause TG to stop looking at his own visage in the mirror and migrate over to this topic.
-
AuthorPosts
