> > Under bad leaders (like Bush) people are policy. So if Bush kept people on who cause public scandal you would be all for it? I seem to think you would be the opposite based on just about all of your bush bashing posts. He's the captain and if his navigator is bad he should get a new navigator.
> Under good leaders, people are resources for progress and execution. See above. Apply the same argument you used against Bush to Obama and I think you will be unhappy with the results as it says they're not so different. > Your implication is like saying that because Joe Blow stuck a fork in > the toaster and killed himself yesterday nobody can ever use > electricity again. Resources are resources. Some are dangerous in > the wrong hands; like guns. Huh? You analogy makes no sense in comparison to the article. A person made a public spectacle and disgraced her employer, threatening his chances of winning. The person was fired for it. The person was rehired after their disgrace would not matter much. Thus I support Obama using any person for anything (legal) as long as > it gets us out of our hole. So if he wanted to hire Bush on you would have no problem, right? And if he wanted to hire Wright you would have no problem either. No person, no matter how bad, should be restricted from the job as long as they're useful. Thank God Bin Laden can't be hired on as terrorism expert. I mean, he would be useful, right? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;207172674;29440083;f Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:281858 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
